Here is an overview of related restrictions in other countries [1]. Actually, in many European countries, Google does not grant access to Gemini for people under 16yo [2,3].
The best implementation I know of digital ID is the one in Estonia. It comes with a data tracker, such that each citizen can see who exactly has been looking at their data [1].
Done more or less like that in Belgium too. Basically, if any civil servant look at your data, this is recorded in the "Banque Carrefour de la Sécurité Sociale". Your eid is used to authentify/authorize you on various state web site (which is OK)
US credit reports also show you who is looking at them. Does visibility really matter when mandatory participation is normalized as a part of functioning in society?
This reminds me of a hoax from the Yes Men [1]. They convinced temporarily the BBC that a company agreed to a compensation package for the victims of a chemical disaster, which resulted in a 4.23 percent decrease of the share price of the company. When it was revealed that it was a hoax, the share price returned to its initial price.
I wonder if it works better if we ask the LLM to produce a script that extract the resulting list, and then we run the script on the two input lists.
There is also the question of the two input lists: it's not clear if it is better to ask the LLM to extract the two input lists directly, or again to ask the LLM to write a script that extract the two input lists from the raw text data.
That's a very interesting question. When comparing wildly different computing machines, how to make a fair comparison?
At least two criteria comes in mind: the volume and the energy consumption.
Indeed we can safely assume that more volume and more energy leads to more computation power. For example, it is not fair to compare a 10m^3 room filled with computers with 10cm^3 computer. The same goes with the number of kilowhat-hours used.
Thinking further on those two criteria for GPUs and humans, we could also consider the access to energy and volume. First, energy access for machines has dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. Second, volume access for machines has also increased since the beginning of the mass production. In particular, creating one cube meter of new GPUs is faster than giving birth to a new human.
tldr: fair comparison of two machines should take into account their volume and their energy consumption. On the other hand, this might be mitigated by how fast a machine can increase its volume, and what is its bandwidth for energy consumption.
> Has this always been an issue in academia, or is this an increasing or new phenomenon?
The introduction of this article [1] gives an insight on the metric used in the Middle Ages. Essentially, to keep his position in a university, a researcher could win public debates by solving problems nobody else could solve. This led researchers to keep their work secret. Some researchers even got angry about having their work published, even with proper credit.
On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2].
> Every time someone makes a confident prediction about the future 10 or more years out all I can think of is the Population Bomb book
Fortunately, almost twenty years before the Population Bomb book, others such as Alfred Sauvy were already warning against confident overpopulation arguments. They suggested more reasonable arguments such as examining countries on a case-by-case basis [1].
Thanks, I was asking specifically about deals with telecom companies to be the default search engine, and your second link [1] seems to be relevant, in that it mentions Verizon, though the deal with Apple seems to have been the core of the case:
> Much of the trial centered on Google's deal with Apple to have Google search as the default option on the Safari web browser. Witnesses from Google, Verizon and Samsung testified about the impact of Google's annual payments of approximately $10 billion to maintain default status for Google search.
For the form, you might be interested in Ethica, by Spinoza [1]. On the other hand, for fact checking, the key concept seems to be trust in sources rather than logical consistency.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/clyd1dvrll1o
[2] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1350409
[3] https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16109150