The privacy-focused search engine is asking the public where they stand on AI, arguing that AI features should always be optional.
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 108 users / day
- 246 users / week
- 454 users / month
- 1.13K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 4.99K Posts
- 122K Comments
- Modlog
Boy howdy, do I have just the script for you!
https://pypi.org/project/clanker_score/
Full disclosure: It doesn’t work. But the idea is nice: … that you could — perhaps in real life — identify AI-generated content. … so I wrote a framework that purports to do that.
Keyword density is not the only measure of gloss. There are others that have been developed to measure ratios between parts of speech. Unfortunately none of these distinguish sharply between pages that naturally convey genuine information and pages that have been designed to convey fluff for ulterior purposes. It is unlikely that combining measures of gloss will result in a tool that discriminates much better than keyword density by itself.