> You can’t be data driven and also blind to the data
"Tickets closed" is an amazing data driven & blind to the data metric. You can have someone closing an insane number of tickets, looking amazing on the KPIs, but no one's measuring "Tickets reopened" or "Tickets created for the same issue a day later".
It's really easy to set up awful KPIs and lose all sight of what is actually happening while having data to show your bosses
> All it would take is forcing an artificial CPU slowdown
Technically, yes. But for many large tech companies it would require a large organisational mindset shift to go from more features is more promotions is more money to good, stable product with well maintained codebase is better and THAT would require a dramatic shift away from line must go up to something more sustainable and less investor/stock obsessed.
I may be wrong, but I think they mean ship from the factory to the distribution point so that could add some time between an item being made and shipped to a customer
But I've never done anything like this, so ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
> I would think that the credit card owner would dispute the charge and Steam would deactivate the key
There's a real issue for both Valve and the game dev if this happens. The public isn't going to take this key doesn't work or worse my game stopped working after I bought it and blame nebulous credit card fraud, they're going to blame Valve and/or the dev
> There's a real issue for both Valve and the game dev if this happens. The public isn't going to take this key doesn't work or worse my game stopped working after I bought it and blame nebulous credit card fraud, they're going to blame Valve and/or the dev
It's actually worse than that. G2A have a "consumer friendly" approach whereby if your code doesn't work, they'll basically just take your word for it and give you a new one. In effect what it means is they don't really care if the codes are stolen/duds, they'll just go through _more_ to avoid them having a chargeback against them.
Common large datasets being inherently biased towards some ideas/concepts and away from others in ways that imply negative things is something that there's a LOT of literature about
That's not a very scientific stance. What would be far more informative is if we looked at the system prompt and confirm whether or not the bias was coming from it. From my experience when responses were exceptionally biased the source of the bias was my own prompts.
The OP is making a claim that an LLM assumes a meeting between two women is childcare. I've worked with LLMs enough to know that current gen LLMs wouldn't make that assumption by default. There is no way that whatever calendar related data that was used to train LLMs would include majority of sole-women 1:1s being childcare focused. That seems extremely unlikely.
Not to Let me google that for you... but there are a LOT of scientific papers that specifically analyse bias in LLM output and reference the datasets that they are trained on
Maybe. But if the founders were at all pre-gold-rush Internet people, sentiments like "don't be evil" seemed (in my impression at the time) more the genuine norm than the exception.
reply