Have you tried reading it? It’s written so poorly that I really hope no human was involved in this and it’s just AI generated garbage.

My bad, I wasn’t precise enough with what I wanted to say. Of course you can confirm (with astronomically high likelihood) that a screenshot of AI Overview is genuine if you get the same result with the same prompt.

What you can’t really do is prove the negative. If someone gets an output then replicating their prompt won’t necessarily give you the same output, for a multitude of reasons. e.g. it might take all other things Google knows about you into account, Google might have tweaked something in the last few minutes, the stochasticity of the model is leading to a different output, etc.

Also funny you bring up image generation, where this actually works too in some cases. For example they used the same prompt with multiple different seeds and if there’s a cluster of very similar output images, you can surmise that an image looking very close to that was in the training set.

Assuming AI Overview does not cache results, they would be generated at search-time for each user and “search-event” independently. Even recreating the same prompt would not guarantee a similar AI Overview, so there’s no way to confirm.

Edit: See my comment below for what I actually meant to say

Assuming we shrink all spacial dimensions equally: With Z, the diagonal will also shrink so that the two horizontal lines would be closer together and then you could not fit them into the original horizontal lines anymore. Only once you shrink the Z far enough that it would fit within the line-width could you fit it into itself again. X I and L all work at any arbitrary amount of shrinking though.

So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.

As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.

However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.

I find it wild that, to this day, Windows defaults to opening them in a browser. Windows has an image viewer right there.

Can that image viewer extract text so that a user could easily copy/paste it? I think if whatever pdf I was opening didn’t allow me to do that I would be really frustrated.

Remember the people who created malicious libraries that ChatGPT made up and suggested, in the hopes someone would blindly install them? You can do this a lot easier here. Check what websites this tends to hallucinate when typing “google” “youtube” “facebook” etc. and if any of them don’t exist yet, register that address and host a phishing version of the corresponding site there.

Eh, nothing I did was “figuring out which loophole [they] use”. I’d think most people in this thread talking about the mathematics that could make it a true statement are fully aware that the companies are not using any loophole and just say “above average” to save face. It’s simply a nice brain teaser to some people (myself included) to figure out under which circumstances the statement could be always true.

Also if you wanna be really pedantic, the math is not about the companies, but a debunking of the original Tweet which confidently yet incorrectly says that this statement couldn’t be always true.

Same. I had PayPal do an automated charge back because their system thought I was doing something fraudulent when I wasn’t. Steam blocked my account.

Talking to support and re-buying said game did fix the issue for me.

It’s even simpler. A strictly increasing series will always have element n be higher than the average between any element<n and element n.

Or in other words, if the number of calls is increasing every day, it will always be above average no matter the window used. If you use slightly larger windows you can even have some local decreases and have it still be true, as long as the overall trend is increasing (which you’ve demonstrated the extreme case of).

so the names of the ai characters HAVE to be stored in game…

Some games also generate names oh the fly based on rules. For example, KSP stitches names together based on a pre- and suffix and then rejects a few unfortunate possible combinations such as Dildo, prompting a reroll.

I suspect with your game, they just fed it a dictionary of common words though without properly vetting it.

I’m still not 100% trusting that. Any time a dev comes up with a new feature like this one, they might forget to implement a check if the game is privated (or do the check and mess up properly hiding it).

If House has taught me anything, it’s D, but then E.

Because it’s a cat.

Even worse, a VAC ban in your game will probably transfer to your account in general. You won’t only be affected in that game, but in any games that check your VAC status.

I’m pretty sure this was already the case in some games before, depending on the netcode of the game.

The old FAQ said:

What if a borrower is caught cheating or committing fraud while playing my shared games? Your Family Sharing privileges may be revoked and your account may also be VAC banned if a borrower cheats or commits fraud. In addition, not all VAC protected games are shareable. We recommend you only authorize familiar Steam Accounts and familiar computers you know to be secure. And as always, never give your password to anyone.

If it’s a game with VAC it probably always worked as described above, but for example: People in Fall Guys did use this trick to avoid getting banned for cheating until they turned off Family Share for Fall Guys shortly after release.

The one year period of waiting after leaving one seems excessive.

It’s slightly better than that for the person who leaves. It’s a one year period starting the moment they joined the previous one. So if you’ve been part of a family for 1+ years you can join/create a new one right away.

The slot you occupied however does stay locked for an additional year.

I also have my current setup with found family and as I live close to a country border I cannot switch over properly as I have members on both sides of the border. I understand their intent is “same household”, so I do understand why this is the case, still sucks for me though.

I hope they have good separation of the logical family and the physical pc’s, It’s really annoying to resetup stuff with my partner every time one of us installs a different linux distro.

After toying around in the beta, this seems to not be an issue anymore as they seem to actually go off accounts now and not hardware anymore. It was quite frustrating in the old system though.

That’s a Spell Card though.

If we get access too all future updates, Dwarf Fortress is my clear #1 choice.
If we also assume that the game will forever have an active enough userbase that lack of players won’t be a detriment: Infinity Wars as my #2.

If we assume no updates, no mods and no guarantee of users: Tales of Maj’Eyal and probably some 4x or grand strategy game, it’s a tossup between Civ, Gal Civ, and Endless Legend, maybe even one of the Total Wars.

Not every meal in a “$x/plate” restaurant is gonna cost the same though. It’s not hard to reach a disparity between the cheapest and most expensive reasonable meal (similar sizes) of around a factor of 2 at many restaurants.

Why is the server getting twice the tip if I order the most expensive plate and dessert vs cheapest plate and dessert?