I used to write that kind of stuff for a living when I was really poor and scraping by, it paid by the word and so low that you could realistically only crack minimum wage if you kept typing continuously and didn’t stop to think or do any research.
The person who predicted 70% chance of AI doom is Daniel Kokotajlo, who quit OpenAI because of it not taking this seriously enough. The quote you have there is a statement by OpenAI, not by Kokotajlo, this is all explicit in the article. The idea that this guy is motivated by trying to do marketing for OpenAI is just wrong, the article links to some of his extensive commentary where he is advocating for more government oversight specifically of OpenAI and other big companies instead of the favorable regulations that company is pushing for. The idea that his belief in existential risk is disingenuous also doesn’t make sense, it’s clear that he and other people concerned about this take it very seriously.
If it’s using a local model like it says I think this is fine:
We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models – i.e., more private – to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.
When people voiced this, there were told to “shut up shitcoiner”
I think any project with a core of dogmatism like this is going to be very vulnerable to subversion and attack
I feel like reading statutes is unreliable because a lot of how the law works is how courts interpret the law, which can be very different from the commonsense interpretation of the letter of the law. Lacking broader context, I can’t know from just this exactly what the consequences might be. Here’s some parts that are possibly concerning though:
The Commission may, in its discretion, prescribe the forms of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to this chapter, including the accounts, records, and memoranda of the movement of traffic
Not sure if this increases the ability of the government to spy on people through their ISPs or if that remains the same.
(a) Requirement to restrict access (1) Prohibited conduct Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
Some states have been experimenting with broad bans on online porn sites and requiring those sites and also social media sites to demand id from all users, maybe this provision could give a future FCC the power to apply this sort of thing to the internet nationally? Although this section already explicitly mentions the internet which is confusing if this whole thing is only recently being made relevant to the internet.
There are provisions about the FCC being able to come up with rules for the prevention of robocalls, maybe this could be generalized to prohibit some forms of automated network traffic?
It’s worth mentioning that obscenity laws apply whether Net Neutrality is a thing or not
Couldn’t this reclassification affect that sort of thing in a jurisdiction sense though? Again, I like net neutrality, mostly because the idea of something like the standard internet option being Facebook only is terrifying, but it sounds like a big part of this is reclassifying ISPs to be subject to rules made by the FCC. I’d really rather it be a law passed by congress, and I worry about how federal agencies might abuse their powers over the internet when those powers are expanded in general. I’m not really sure how much it generally expands their authority over the internet, but it seems like it might.
I think net neutrality is a good thing, but could this reclassification mean that the FCC will have increased authority to police content online? There has been a lot of worrying activity around that lately in general, and the FCC has a history of imposing censorship on traditional media.
Display can be fixed with torrenting magnet URLs.
By centralization of display what I mean is along the lines of the sort of censorship that is actually applied here: popular exchange frontends and client software not displaying blacklisted NFTs. This is ultimately a social and market issue rather than a technical problem; it’s already possible to buy sell and transfer NFTs facing this sort of censorship because the smart contracts themselves are not censored (or else uncensored copy markets could easily be published), but it doesn’t matter because if they are banned on the frontends most people recognize and use the price will tank anyway; few people care about NFTs except as a speculative asset and possibly for clout, take that potential away and there is nothing left.
Ultimately I think what it comes down to is that the property of non-fungibility itself is directly at odds with privacy, decentralization, and censorship resistance. The value of an NFT anonymously traded can’t really be evaluated because its history of trades could easily be (and often is) all fake wash trading, so there’s always going to be a trend towards less or non-anonymous trading to establish provenance. Maybe if they did something beyond being a simple token representing an image, idk.
I don’t think Monero can fix the censorship issue with NFTs because it is caused by a centralization of listing/display. Since Monero can’t interface natively with smart contracts on another network it would also be difficult to make a decentralized marketplace and realistically it would probably need to be centralized itself. The problem of who pays the network fees for the NFT transfer remains, and once it’s on an unused wallet, someone still has to send more Eth or whatever there if they want to move it again.
A year ago local LLM was just not there, but the stuff you can run now with 8gb vram is pretty amazing, if not quite as good yet as GPT 4. Honestly even if it stops right where it is, it’s still powerful enough to be a foundation for a more accessible and efficient way to interface with computers.
So what do people think of TPM, supposedly why they’re doing this?
Resenting Microsoft more than I hated Linux basically. When Windows started pushing malware-like popups and automatically “upgrading” peoples OS without asking I started using Linux as my main OS. At that point I disliked Linux because I had had some bad experiences with attempting to use it in the past, but it was becoming clear it is the lesser of two evils. Over the years it got more tolerable while Windows just got worse. Not an evangelist or obsessed at all, I actually still dislike it, but there’s no way I’m going back.
When I started using LM I had a lot of problems, but switching to XFCE fixed most of them
The website’s reclusive creator, Leif Brooks, did not want to talk about Alice’s case via email so I travelled to his home in Orlando, Florida, in the hope of speaking to him there. But once again he remained silent.
Wow. Even a video of the aforementioned harassment, and the article overall repeatedly focuses on his name and a large picture of his face while strongly implying that having run a website makes him to blame for the sexual abuse of a child, an event the article spends a lot of time describing. Zero respect for this kind of “journalism”.
More curious about the claimed trend and what’s behind it. Who was demanding Omegle meet unachievable standards and then attacking it?
In recent years, it seems like the whole world has become more ornery. Maybe that has something to do with the pandemic, or with political disagreements. Whatever the reason, people have become faster to attack, and slower to recognize each other’s shared humanity. One aspect of this has been a constant barrage of attacks on communication services, Omegle included, based on the behavior of a malicious subset of users.
To an extent, it is reasonable to question the policies and practices of any place where crime has occurred. I have always welcomed constructive feedback; and indeed, Omegle implemented a number of improvements based on such feedback over the years. However, the recent attacks have felt anything but constructive. The only way to please these people is to stop offering the service. Sometimes they say so, explicitly and avowedly; other times, it can be inferred from their act of setting standards that are not humanly achievable. Either way, the net result is the same.
Who are “these people”?
That’s a good point, I guess I haven’t been too aware of all that stuff.
The rights to search sure are, but it’s more like Google happens to be the one paying it right now. It could be Microsoft or Yahoo or anyone.
I don’t buy that what they are paid reflects the value of their search rights. Google has antitrust interest in the continued existence of Firefox, that’s why they would pay them, doesn’t matter what they say it’s for.
Isn’t that their main source of revenue?
This often happens to me on Windows with the Index so it might not even be a Linux specific issue