They are very legit and well researched articles, probably the most accurate in terms of tech news(semaphore is pretty good as well). However, for niche audience news, subscription is probably the only sustainable way to build a business
Not naming sources is one thing, but which news stories from The Information were false? IMO they have an amazing track record, to the point where half the tech news you read is some journalist's distorted summary of something they read in The Information. There's a reason they can charge $400 per year and people pay.
The service they provide is verifying rumors, essentially. Due to the nature of the subject matter it's not possible for them to show you all the data you need to verify things yourself. If you don't want to trust their verification that's your prerogative but IMO rather silly considering their excellent past track record. And that's coming from someone who is extremely critical of most journalism these days.
Their past reporting on non-public information that I was personally familiar with has been 100% correct. This particular news about $10m packages was just corroborated independently by some well known researchers I follow on Twitter. Based on that and their prior track record of things they reported first that later became public and were true, I trust their reporting on other things I can't immediately verify.
It's a screenshot of his DMs. Someone he knows is telling him they know it's real. The name is cut off presumably because he doesn't want to out his friend who is disclosing non-public information.
yes, that's how professional journalists and outlets work: they announce news if they are verifiable. Tabloids spread rumors instead. There are many rumors to spread.
They're testing the waters to see what they can get away with. Last year they ran a trial where 4K playback was completely locked behind Premium for some users, which they walked back due to backlash, but they wanted to do it.
Likewise they want to break adblockers, and they are probably easily capable of doing so, but they're trying to triangulate exactly how much backlash they'll get before committing to it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with blocking ad blockers, backlash is just cause people feel entitled to consume content for free without paying their fair share to creators be it adsense or premium account share.
I think HN users are over indexing on capabilities to solve complex problems, I was looking for something simple like "why diane feinstein is in capitol today", bard knew the answer whereas chatgpt doesnt answer the question. another example was "why is jaime foxx in hospital", i think these are the question that people usually have where bard is much better equipped at.
Maybe just maybe… As an AI language model, ChatGPT does not have access to real-time information unless it's provided to it. Its knowledge cutoff date is September 2021.
Chatgpt when it debuted stated its knowledge was restricted on current events.
yea but that's regular people's usecase, if they train and provide it for free for sure they'd be better option but in current form bard feels more useful for me.
Weird, I actually love that feature. Especially on my browser if there are multiple videos on my feed that I wanted to watch then hated open multiple tabs for them and in most cases I never ended up going there or bloating the number of tabs open.
