"We think it’s important to begin learning from contact with reality... and that people adopt these tools carefully...." 🙌
With carefully = informed, educated and transparently.
But "slowly"? Not quite. An emphasis on intentionally testing and sharing information is key.
Today we launched a new product called ChatGPT Agent.
Agent represents a new level of capability for AI systems and can accomplish some remarkable, complex tasks for you using its own computer. It combines the spirit of Deep Research and Operator, but is more powerful than that may sound—it can think for a long time, use some tools, think some more, take some actions, think some more, etc. For example, we showed a demo in our launch of preparing for a friend’s wedding: buying an outfit, booking travel, choosing a gift, etc. We also showed an example of analyzing data and creating a presentation for work.
Although the utility is significant, so are the potential risks.
We have built a lot of safeguards and warnings into it, and broader mitigations than we’ve ever developed before from robust training to system safeguards to user controls, but we can’t anticipate everything. In the spirit of iterative deployment, we are going to warn users heavily and give users freedom to take actions carefully if they want to.
I would explain this to my own family as cutting edge and experimental; a chance to try the future, but not something I’d yet use for high-stakes uses or with a lot of personal information until we have a chance to study and improve it in the wild.
We don’t know exactly what the impacts are going to be, but bad actors may try to “trick” users’ AI agents into giving private information they shouldn’t and take actions they shouldn’t, in ways we can’t predict. We recommend giving agents the minimum access required to complete a task to reduce privacy and security risks.
For example, I can give Agent access to my calendar to find a time that works for a group dinner. But I don’t need to give it any access if I’m just asking it to buy me some clothes.
There is more risk in tasks like “Look at my emails that came in overnight and do whatever you need to do to address them, don’t ask any follow up questions”. This could lead to untrusted content from a malicious email tricking the model into leaking your data.
We think it’s important to begin learning from contact with reality, and that people adopt these tools carefully and slowly as we better quantify and mitigate the potential risks involved. As with other new levels of capability, society, the technology, and the risk mitigation strategy will need to co-evolve.
I don't think developers have yet appreciated how practical (and almost magical) vibe coding tools are for non-techies. Especially for people who are more visual, external processors.
6/ Hi, I'm Annabel, a data protection professional, whose helped 50+ companies in basic compliance and gaining a competitive advantage through trust.
If you're building for enterprise and need strong privacy practices that win trust, let's chat!
https://t.co/8o36Yg2Umu
At Assenteo we've launched data protection reviews of AI companies - the AI DPO.
AI DPO's focus is on design and strategy that moves a business forward, rather than just ticking boxes.
So @lovable felt right to be first up.
A thread on our findings👇
5/ Overall:
👌 Lovable is meeting data protection basics. With a few updates, they could build even greater trust as they scale.
Find the full review here: https://t.co/iwxgbPJzXX
YouTube JUST announced this new thing called Hype and it's lowkey genius
imagine you're scrolling and see a wonderful video from some small creator. you wanna do more than just like or share. enter Hype.
okay, here's how it works
you get 3 "Hypes" a week to boost videos you dig. it's like a supercharged upvote.
more Hypes = higher on a special leaderboard.
but here's the thing
it only works for creators under 500K subs and vids less than a week old. plus there's a "small creator bonus" so the little guys can compete.
why's this smart
1. turns passive viewers into active supporters (people want to support the up and comers!)
2. gives smaller creators a shot at blowing up
3. YouTube gets more engagement without messing with the algorithm
4. promotes niches so everything isn't watching the same thing (increase watch time)
"In just the first four weeks of our beta tests in Turkey, Taiwan, and Brazil, users hyped over 5 million times across more than 50,000 unique channels" - YT Team
it's not about killing the big creators. it's about giving the underdogs a chance to be seen.
it currently being tested
let's be real, social's been feeling stale. same big accounts, same content, rinse and repeat.
you either dont get seen or you go ballistic.
Hype. it's like CPR for the internet dream. suddenly, that person making weird videos in their bedroom could be tomorrow's viral sensation.
just like the good ole days.
it's bringing back that wild west vibe of early YouTube. when any random video could blow up overnight.
i totally can see a hype-type feature for platforms like X/Twitter too. i hope it takes off.
it's about keeping the internet weird, creative, and unpredictable.
so yeah, Hype might just save us from an endless feed of polished corporate content and put the "social" back in social media. maybe its the domino we need to get other social platforms to do the same.
let's see who/what the internet decides to make famous next.
time to make the internet weird again.
It happened to me first — headlines portraying me as a “toxic leader” when I had to make the same, often unpopular, decisions that my male peers did without critique.
For them, it’s called Founder Mode, and it’s celebrated (a proper noun! With its own merch! And trademarks being filed as I write this!).
For women, it’s called “toxic”.
After my “fall” in 2016, I watched an incredible cohort of female founders come up behind me.
I thought there was something fundamentally wrong with me and that they had it all figured out.
They were my friends, but it was hard to watch them win. I secretly muted their Instagram accounts. Why was I the only piece of shit female founder? What did they possess that I didn’t? Was it my upbringing? Maybe the media was right.
These women took big swings, raised huge rounds, and were held up as examples for countless other women who for the first time saw that their aspirations might actually be within reach.
And then, one by one, they were canceled.
Our responsibility wasn’t just to pave the way for women, but to do it perfectly — and when we weren’t examples of whatever warped mutation the word Girlboss (which is now immortalized in the Merriam-Webster dictionary) had come to symbolize, we were “toxic.”
No one expects men to build a utopian workplace that cures institutional biases, but we were expected to do just that.
This is all too complex for an X post, and I’m not making excuses for anyone.
Today, posts like this are out of character for me because, like them (as the non self-appointed consigliere for scorned Girlbosses, I know), we’ve all been told to keep gender out of the conversation.
The media’s glee surrounding the “fall of the Girlboss” has committed, at scale, more harm than any pretty, young, white (let’s call it what it is), often unrelateable female founder could ever do.
The phenomenon reminded a generation of women what we’d been told for eons: be nice and stay in your lane, or else.
I think it’s ridiculous that we all have love hate relationships with the devices we use the most
So I spent this summer putting the most useful features of my phone into a digital sidekick.
Digicam+MP3 player/recorder+useful tools, tied together with a cute tamagotchi v2