So then your counter to someone bringing attention to the fact that LLMs are actively telling people (vulnerable people, due to reasons that you’ve pointed out), is that it isn’t the singular contributing factor?

I get what you’re saying here, and I think everyone else does too? I don’t want to just be entirely dismissive and say “no shit” but I’m curious as to what it is you want or expect out of this? Do you take offense at people pushing back at harmful LLMs? Do you want people to care more about creating a kinder society? Do you think these things are somehow incompatible?

Of course LLMs aren’t driving people to suicide in a vacuum, no one is claiming that. Clearly though, when taken within the larger context of the current scale of mental health crisis, having LLMs that are encouraging people to commit suicide is a bad thing that we should absolutely be making noise about.

Is the argument here that anti-AI folks are hypocrites because people can be bad too sometimes? That’s a remarkably childish and simple take.

Different types of AI. What you say is true for LLMs and other generative AI but noise reduction and up scaling algorithms are of a different class and don’t rely on stolen training data to function.

Divorced :(

Well I know these people and they’re great plus they’re married now :)

You’re right, I had it wrong. Misinformation deleted.

Sad to see people trying to correct you here, maybe I can help explain.

Gravitational force between two objects is GMmr^2, for dropping objects on the Earth (or Moon) we ignore the mass of the object we’re dropping because it’s practically insignificant, but if your experiment really was perfectly accurate then the observed rate would be extremely slightly different as the heavier of the two objects being dropped is also pulling the Earth up towards it a bit more than the lighter object. If the person performing the experiment is standing on the Earth (or just using the Earth as their reference frame) they would see this as the heavier object falling faster.

You’re right that light is not “a wave and a particle depending on whether you observe it”. Instead, light is a quantized field. It is a field because it exists at every point and allows for wave-like behavior such as superposition and interference (both things seen in all fields, like waves in water or radio, etc.). But it is quantized because when the field interacts it does so via photons which can only exist in integer quantities. This quantization of interaction of the underlying continuous field gives us all the “weirdness” we see. Okay, not quite all of it, there are still even weirder parts of quantum mechanics, but it does explain the double slit experiment.

Measured boot requires secure boot to be enabled as one of its components.

The real value of measured boot is when paired with full disk encryption as it protects against boot loader attacks that can compromise your sealed keys.

Ahkshually that would be the K’Chain Nah’ruk, not the Che’Malle

Only if they aren’t using customer provided encryption keys (is using blob/bucket storage) or an equivalent approach to encryption at rest, and make sure they’re doing standard TLS for encryption in flight.

It’s absolutely possible, and standard for any decent organization, to build their cloud architectures to fully account for the cloud provider potentially accessing your data without authorization. I’ve personally had such design conversations multiple times.

Yes, ICE, the 22 year old agency is definitely something the US can’t do without. Certainly didn’t manage fine without it for the vast majority of our history as a country. Fucking hell.

Brother Ali don’t miss

Yup, because that’s how adjectives work

The real complaint is people who refer to women as “females” which makes them sound like ferengi. Saying a “female engineer” is just correct grammar. Some folks have instead, lacking a capacity for nuance (and language) taken this to mean that there is an issue with the word “female” in general.

crazy people need dick too

There are literally dozens of us!

I read it originally from a poster on a privacy/security reddit who was reporting their personal experiences. It isn’t the most reliable source but in this context I consider it worth accounting for anyway, as what the person described experiencing is both possible and plausible. For anyone who is serious about preventing these sort of privacy breaches, the open wifi vector should absolutely be considered and guarded against if possible (easy but less comprehensive approach would be to see if there is an airplane mode on TV, harder but more reliable is to physically disable or shield the wifi module on the TV itself).

Some TVs have been found to continually scan for open wifi networks to connect to in order to ship back the telemetry they gather.

How does that logically follow? It seems obvious to me that if every choice is going to piss people off then you simply disregard that as a factor and then make the best choice possible. If that had been their decision process and status quo was the best choice on the merits then that would be perfectly reasonable. That was not, however, the process they described in their blog, instead they remained entirely focused on the one issue that they should have ignored.

They did pick a solution that pisses off a large portion of their user base, that’s exactly what choosing to do nothing means when attempting to fix the most complained about issue with your language. Doing nothing is a choice too after all.