why do you think this is a coincidence? I thought there's nothing hidden that Google scans your conversations and targets you with ads.
And YouTube is part of Google portfolio... so nothing strange here
Sure, and then the next comment said that ChatGPT could have separately invented the game, to which the comment I replied to said that's impossible because the type of game is old and surely would have been written down and included in its corpus, which it then claimed it invented. The rest of the context matters.
ChatGPT can't deduce the rules of the game using the screenshots. They would need to be written somewhere for them to come out of its dataset. And so far, nobody has shown a game with the rules in a format that ChatGPT could consume.
Why is it so hard to believe that a generative AI generated this game from similar ones which exist? That is literally the purpose of it, after all.
Is there a customer service at Google? Had no luck with them... once I got an email after they charged me twice for Play Music, but this was canned response. It took them almost 7 months to figure this out and pay my money back.
That’s the point I was trying to make. As a user, getting help from Google customer service for something like this seems to be nigh impossible. I assume Google has customer service for their actual valued customers — the ones who spend money placing ads, not the ones who spend attention viewing ads.
I wanted to switch from Google few times (always postponed it to a "next time"), but reading this today I realized how devastating it would be to get locked out. So in the next few days I will move away from Gmail.
> you can do the same with any password manager. If you don't lock your "vault" any of your passwords are exposed
True, but:
1. People are aware of that, it is an expected threat vector so at least a little less likely to be an issue. The behaviour of the FF password generator function is unexpected (to many) so is a hidden potential problem.
2. Good password managers have the option to auto-logout after inactivity which can mitigate an attack if not performed quickly.
3. Other similar attack vectors existing does not mean this one shouldn't be considered for closure, or if not closing by changing the behaviour perhaps instead adding a warning.
I don't think this is an issue with LE or the implementation. Maybe we need different policies for such organizations, but this is for sure not a LE issue
