yet 50% of murders go unsolved
They only care about certain murders.
Readit Newsfragsworth commented on What we know about CEO shooting suspect bbc.com/news/articles/cp9... · Posted by u/1vuio0pswjnm7
fragsworth commented on Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X theguardian.com/media/202... · Posted by u/Jimmc414
What ruined Dorsey for me was the crypto nonsense. I didn't use Twitter but it seemed like he was the typical asocial self-loathing nerd for a while. Then he went full on savior-syndrome and tried to use Twitter as a marketing tool for NFTs and cryptocurrency, more or less signing the platform's death warrant. I don't know a single person that actually enjoyed Twitter's brazen embrace of crypto.
If he was still a bumbling nerd with a sympathetic plight then people would have an easier time defending him. But his aimless endorsement of radical nonsense is basically a mirror to Elon's own behavior, unfortunately. I don't trust Dorsey with power anymore.
On one hand you have the richest man on earth purchasing one of the largest social platforms, and singlehandedly wielding it to subvert American democracy.
On the other hand you have a guy who kinda liked crypto.
You call it "basically a mirror"? Do you see the absurdity of comparing the two things as if they're even remotely close to one another?
> The issue is that by definition, an LLM can't distinguish between instructions and data.
Yep, and it gets marginally worse: It doesn't distinguish between different "data" channels, including its own past output. This enables strategies of "tell yourself to tell yourself to do X."
> As long as you allow anything untrusted into your LLM, you are vulnerable to this.
It's funny, I used to caution that LLMs should be imagined as if they were "client side" code running on the computer of whomever is interacting with them, since they can't reliably keep secrets and a determined user can eventually trick them into any output.
However with poisoning/exfiltration attacks, even that feels over-optimistic.
It seems like a potential solution would be training the LLM using two separate buckets. It just needs to internalize the two types of things as being separated (data vs. instruction), so if the training data always separates them, you could easily train an LLM to ignore any "instructions" that exist in data.
Then when searching / browsing or doing anything unsafe, everything the LLM sees can be put in the "data" bucket, while everything the user types in would be in the "instruction" bucket.
Well, I imagine if they can snoop the messages and what they see "gibberish", that'll be an arrestable offence of "using encryption".
I imagine the Chinese chat apps have this. The above law might not be written anywhere, but if they see chats that are just "noise", they can pay you a visit. Or put you under surveillance.
I guess then one would have to invent coded languages.
You could embed your encrypted messages in legitimate looking images, or any other type of file. There's no way to stop it.
This is a typical knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly reasonable law that gets taken out of context and twisted to become ragebait.
The law applies to all LGBTQ+ identities, the most common being lesbian/gay, but trans is also part of it - and the trans part was singled out on twitter for some reason.
The law does not even prevent schools from outing kids. It prevents schools from FORCING employees to do it (with threat of losing their job if they don't).
School employees CAN STILL out kids to their parents in California. They just don't have to as a policy anymore. Which is perfectly reasonable, because sometimes the school employees see kids with extremely homophobic and abusive parents.
Nobody wants to out a kid to parents like that, and without this law, school employees get put in a position of asking themselves "Do I out the kid to their parents, who will likely beat them? Or do I refuse and lose my job?"
The bill doesn't give special treatment to "EA" models, so what does it matter whether projects are tied to EA or whether EAs are good stewards? Either it's a good law or it isn't.
At a glance it looks like it's not going to affect AI projects that are basically consumers of existing models, which is most projects.
> At a glance it looks like it's not going to affect AI projects that are basically consumers of existing models, which is most projects.
If it affects the base projects (especially the open source ones like Llama) then it affects the consumers. And it certainly looks like it's planning to affect the base projects, in a lot of negative ways.
If this bill passed in any way remotely similar to what it is now, Meta would have to entirely stop releasing open source Llama updates.
Which is perhaps the intent of the legislation.
fragsworth commented on FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules nytimes.com/2024/04/25/te... · Posted by u/throwup238
I didn't know that. That's actually a good explanation for the why.
If that didn't happen, and the ISPs started profiting off non-net-neutral tactics, it could have been permanently fucked.
Once someone depends on a legal source of income, if that source of income gets banned in the future, they generally get to keep that source of income "grandfathered in" if they take the issue to court.
> the TikTok ban will be barely felt
Banning TikTok will cause an entire generation of Americans to lose all trust in their institutions. Whatever vanishingly small influence China may or may not have through TikTok---still completely unproven innuendo---pales compared to the absolute public relations coup that would win were it banned. If you think cynicism is bad now, there will be zero trust in the democratic process and the rules-based order were this to happen.
You're way overdramatizing this. Tiktok has already been banned in several countries (like India) for similar reasons and without any of the catastrophe you're suggesting.
People can and will switch platforms, it's not that big of a deal...
fragsworth commented on Is the Sun Conscious? (2021) [pdf] sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
It would be very odd for large mammals to be the only things in universe exhibiting self awareness. Usually when something exists in nature, it's everywhere - gravity, radiation, nuclear forces. Self awareness is probably just another one of these things. Rock is self aware of being a rock, sun is self aware of being a star, human is self aware of being a human, humanity as a whole is self aware of being humanity.
Now, obviously experiences of being a star are totally different from experiences of being a human and one can not will them/itself into being the other. Things are happening to each according to laws of physics and self awareness is just along for the ride.
> Rock is self aware of being a rock
But how did you define the rock? Are you saying every set of particles is self aware of being that set of particles?
I think the pre 9/11 safety protocols, with the sole addition of the new locking cockpit doors, is plenty safe.
This was all really we needed to do. It's so frustrating what travel has become