They do have lamda and it is available for test in their AI test kitchen. Seems much better handling of sensetive and offensive content then ChatGPT for me, but still cannot perform basic addition like ChatGPT does. I think it is technically better than ChatGPT but maybe they are only going to release the perfect product.
Tbf ChatGPT was far from production quality for serious applications, lots of misinformation and you can make it produce very offensive content. It is a good for toying around but you cannot take the output seriously.
I think a token effort to avoid offensive content is ok, but chatGPT should quickly detect if the human wants to go outside the box and allow it. If a human pushes it means they understand the risks and take full responsibility for the outcome.
This is not how Google's AI Test Kitchen is designed. AI Test Kitchen seems quite boring and very framed system, where you can ask what is the best Dyson model for example, or the old-style "GPT dungeon game", it doesn't really go off-rail (this is part of the product specifications sadly :/).
I couldn't disagree more. ChatGPT would be extremely easy to convert to "HateGPT", and would be able to create some pretty powerful and useful political, racial, etc propaganda.
I think it's right that the owners understand what the weaponization of ChatGPT could do and prevent it, and I think we need laws (and fast) before weaponized AI like ChatGPT turns into a disaster for humanity
My experience it is like working with a genius idiot, the type that refuses to be wrong, which means the shithead (if it were human) requires verification and curation. So what if I need to verify? I do that anyway, because people have imperfect memory, documentation is often old, and who knows what unexpected whatever could be impacting my expectations.
People I know say the lamda Kitchen release is unbelievably limited by comparison. A Kitchen session has three sections: The 'Ask a question' prompt is limited to under 100 characters and response is like the existing Google search question snips. The 'Make a List' section is just lists like as in short bullet points. And the 'Creative' section is limited to respond with stories involving dogs for which is a little bizarre to say the least.
That famous tech called cgroup was actually a Google contribution. But I agree that k8s is essentially Google's step to make themselves relavant in Cloud. They have missed the initial opportunity by promoting their PaaS AppEngine instead of something IaaS like ec2 in the beginning of the cloud competition, so Google just play the open-source game and keep releasing stuffs that can be used in all three clouds to lure people to use GCP. But then k8s is a very nice piece of tech that allows one to manage large clusters without vendor lock-in.
Cgroups, namespaces, apparmor/selinux, overlay filesystems, there is much more to containers than just cgroups.
The no vendor lock is looks great on paper but you are locked in day one. (Eg on aws you probably use IAM, LB, ASG for K8 Nodes - you can maybe move it to another cloud but the effort is going to be significant). Cloud agnosticism is a lie.
Effort will be significant for any global changes for non-trivial software. Significant effort is fine. Can you compare moving something from AWS to GCP for Kubernetes and for something like Lambda+Fargate?
I'd say not only is it a lie but is actively a not very good strategy to pursue right now, at least not all out as though you were pursuing some kind of multi-cloud end game.
At the K8s level, it seems like the introduction of the Gateway API is probably a good level of abstraction to work towards that will keep things about as flexible as possible without all of the insanity that comes with going beyond that to keep everything 100% vendor neutral.
It's very strange some of the phrasing of this post. I don't know AWS and Azure that well so I might be off here but every time I look over into those ecosystems it's hard to not come to the conclusion that GCP is literally several years ahead in terms of what they are offering.
Even just sticking strictly to the K8s space, there is nothing even close to matching GKE standalone, let alone GKE autopilot that I am aware of. In the world of serverless the gap looks to be even bigger.
I couldn't imagine a situation where I would even consider something else in a greenfield project / company honestly.
Actually Google did made a version of Google Drive Filestream for Linux, and made it available it Google Colab, just that they never released it publicly for unknown reason. I have grabbed the binary of it. https://github.com/michaellee8/gdrivefs/tree/master/assets
For example duckduckgo produce nothing useful when you search Chinese keywords. DDG maybe good at doing English searches but Google obviously have much more resources.
Lol the company I am working for is doing some kind of wallet that basically allow you to keep and use your private key without a (shitty) browser extension like metamask. You basically just get your key back by authenticating with your google account and pressing your finger at touchid. Basically allow people to have same web 2.0 experience when using web3 apps.
Wait, let me get this straight - your company has the non-sharded encryption key (not the user), it centralized by your service, and all of that is subject to google's whims. Yep, sounds like the heart of web3.
If you want something to have broad appeal you have to hide the key management. Users will never keep track of keys or wallets and they will lose them regularly. Most services solve this by not having the key be the source of truth for anything (i.e. iMessage, WhatsApp, and SSH) so that you can rotate them on a whim. Other services solve this by just hosting the key when it's actually important (Bitlocker). This is just an example of the latter. Sites that support "Login with Google/FB/Email" aren't some malicious conspiracy theory, they're how most people access and secure all their information.
We can't it be a browser-integrated feature? That we can store keys, have them sign messages and e.g. unlock the signature function through e.g. a hardware wallet or a master password?
.. Because major browsers will need to integrate it and they haven't. You can build things yourself more easily than you can convince say chrome to build something (which is the whole point of extensions, really). What you seem to be asking is just metamask to be integrated directly into chrome, which is a nice ask but not done to the right people (ask google/firefox) and its lack does not turn web3 into a 'Stupid Idea'.
There's a lot of extension functionality I'd like straight in the browser itself but it's not the extension's fault that browser devs haven't included it.
Good UX isn't security, MM and Infuria are owned by the same person (very centralized), you can't change your secret phrase, sentry.js doesn't secure a react app very well at all... etc. etc. etc. I'm not a hater (actually I'm a user), but I am pointing out a wide variety of issues that should be publicly discussed.
They were uploading significant details of failed transactions to Segment. If that ever happened to you, they have a connection of a wallet address to other personal details.
I bet aoftware that is so secure to be compared to products of other engineering fields does exist (e.g. avionic systems), but you will have to pay a much higher cost to use it, luke hundreds of thousands dollars since the cost of acheieved the guaranteed security level would also be much higher. Given the low cost of modern consumer software, you really have to understand that you get what you paid for. And if you want security guarantees you don't just need that particular piece of software being secure, you need qualified people to operate it, the hardware running it being secure (probably propietry and cost hundreds of thousands), and the whole software stack being secure as well, from firmware to OS to networking code. This is simply not somehow that your general consumer can afford, and if you enforce that level of security in consumer software like smartphones, it is safe to bet that almost everyone that has a smartphone would be protesting since they would have no Software aviliable on there phone anymore.
Like one comment above said, there do exist ways to enforce that level of software security, (like railway traffic lights) but the cost would be ridiculously high, and those systems are probably not running any consumer kind of software stack, probably without an OS since Linux would has it own vulnerability as well. Those systems are probably made for custom hardware that the software vendor has total control of it as well.
Tbf ChatGPT was far from production quality for serious applications, lots of misinformation and you can make it produce very offensive content. It is a good for toying around but you cannot take the output seriously.