If only he had known he could simply use his laptop to train them.

I would recommend another approach though. We decided for making changes to our home to allow our toddler to be safe in our home environment without being notably constrained.

It's been 10 years since Boston Dynamics released this impressive video of Atlas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

Even though today's robots are vastly more sophisticated, the progress of the last decade shows we shouldn't expect a sudden revolution in their abilities over the next ten years. As is often the case, solving those final few challenges that really make a difference always takes the longest.

We don't leave our young toddlers to roam freely around the house for a reason. Our homes are full of hazards to these risk-seeking small people and a robot is just one more on the list.

Please don’t repeat this anti-Europe myth. Anyone applying a bit of common sense should realize how improbable that claim is.

Plan before you code. Now your plan is just in a prompt.

That the combined element has any surface area that doesn't toggle the radio setting is a straight-up bug.

It is laughable for a component this heavily refined to have such a basic usability flaw.

If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless you physically move closer.

How many is plenty and what are the sources to back this?

Instead of:

1. AI detects gun on surveillance

2. Dispatch armed police to location

It should be:

1. AI detects gun on surveillance

2. Human reviews the pictures and verifies the threat

3. Dispatch armed police to location

I think the latter version is likely what already took place in this incident, and it was actually a human that also mistook a bag of Doritos for a gun. But that version of the story is not as interesting, I guess.

It doesn't change that this is just a quote from a reddit post and a link to it.

People will adapt to the level of cleanliness in the car the get into, so it's a slippery slope. Users will behave respectfully in the early days (maybe because they are first-movers), and then it deteriorates long term.

My own experience is that people used to not even leave an empty soda bottle in the cars and now I see remains from take-out in the floor, coffee cups, chewing gum left around the dashboard etc. You can report this to the car service, but they won't be able to take any meaningful action on it.

It just opens a modal so you can choose to post. You have to make a second click to confirm.

Sharing to a text message is private. In contrast, sharing to social media platforms such as Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest, and LinkedIn makes the content public. The destination determines the audience.

I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense in Meta AI.

However it's a lot more likely their product team genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely they intentionally wanted to give users a bad experience and risk more bad press (again, Meta would benefit nothing from people sharing by mistake).

I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by people who are excited about their conversation with the AI and wants to share it publicly. Just like we see with OpenAI Sora.

There's not much to win for Meta if users instead are unknowingly sharing deeply personal conversations.