It sounds like the company is now blocking access from "bootleg" APKs.
  • Rabbit R1 AI box is actually an Android app in a limited $200 box, running on AOSP without Google Play.
  • Rabbit Inc. is unhappy about details of its tech stack being public, threatening action against unauthorized emulators.
  • AOSP is a logical choice for mobile hardware as it provides essential functionalities without the need for Google Play.
  • De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    7 months ago

    “Fairly high” is still useless (and doesn’t actually quantify anything, depending on context both 1% and 99% could be ‘fairly high’). As long as these models just hallucinate things, I need to double-check. Which is what I would have done without one of these things anyway.

    • AIhasUse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      7 months ago

      Hallucinations are largely dealt with if you use agents. It won’t be long until it gets packaged well enough that anyone can just use it. For now, it takes a little bit of effort to get a decent setup.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      7 months ago

      1% correct is never “fairly high” wtf

      Also if you want a computer that you don’t have to double check, you literally are expecting software to embody the concept of God. This is fucking stupid.

      • De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        7 months ago

        1% correct is never “fairly high” wtf

        It’s all about context. Asking a bunch of 4 year olds questions about trigonometry, 1% of answers being correct would be fairly high. ‘Fairly high’ basically only means ‘as high as expected’ or ‘higher than expected’.

        Also if you want a computer that you don’t have to double check, you literally are expecting software to embody the concept of God. This is fucking stupid.

        Hence, it is useless. If I cannot expect it to be more or less always correct, I can skip using it and just look stuff up myself.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          7 months ago

          Obviously the only contexts that would apply here are ones where you expect a correct answer. Why would we be evaluating a software that claims to be helpful against 4 year old asked to do calculus? I have to question your ability to reason for insinuating this.

          So confirmed. God or nothing. Why don’t you go back to quills? Computers cannot read your mind and write this message automatically, hence they are useless

          • De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish
            7·
            7 months ago

            Obviously the only contexts that would apply here are ones where you expect a correct answer.

            That’s the whole point, I don’t expect correct answers. Neither from a 4 year old nor from a probabilistic language model.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              7 months ago

              And you don’t expect a correct answer because it isn’t 100% of the time. Some lemmings are basically just clones of Sheldon Cooper

              • De_Narm@lemmy.worldEnglish
                6·
                7 months ago

                I don’t expect a correct answer because I’ve used these models quite a lot last year. At least half the answers were hallucinated. And it’s still a common complaint about this product as well if you look at actual reviews (e.g., pretty sure Marques Brownlee mentions it).

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  Like most people, I have no interest in engaging in conversation with someone who gives me zero reason to.

                  Not that it’s any of your business, but quality matters to me more than anything else, which is why I like tools that help me deliver it