That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.
They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That’s pretty damming. Did it just reply “You’re not getting a tax return”? That’s just 50/50 odds.
I would much rather users on here not manipulate titles to make it sound worse than what the actual article is claiming. It’s intentionally misleading.
Weird. The original article says “accused”, but on Lemmy they’re already found guilty.
This isn’t a court of law, or the privatized forced mandatory arbitration that has mostly replaced it.
Out of curiosity, in your view, what has Google done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?
deleted by creator
That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.
They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That’s pretty damming. Did it just reply “You’re not getting a tax return”? That’s just 50/50 odds.
deleted by creator
Every entity has the right of benefit of the doubt. Even if they are the worst entity known.
I would much rather users on here not manipulate titles to make it sound worse than what the actual article is claiming. It’s intentionally misleading.
Check the URL. The site clearly changed the headline after OP posted.
Good find, that explains.