Spoiler alert!
The developers do, in fact, leave security behind.
Remember, the "s" in "AI" stands for "security"!
1874 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Oct 2015
How dare faceless bureaushits interfere with the glorious Free Market (Hallelujah!) by forcing choice on consumers when apartment complex owners are trying to do their residents a favor by removing the burden of needless decision-making. Thankfully, when God-Emperor Trump regains his office by the grace of God, he will smite heathens like Rosenworcel and banish them to the darkest reaches of Hell where they belong!
MAGA! YOLO!
I've had it up to here with people hailing large language models as the epitome of artificial intelligence. Let me make this clear: these models are far from being true AI, and it's time we stop pretending they are!
First off, what do these models really do? They generate text based on patterns and information they've learned during training. It's like saying a parrot is a genius because it can mimic human speech. Just because these models can regurgitate information and produce seemingly coherent sentences doesn't mean they truly understand the content. True AI should comprehend and reason, not just repeat like a parrot.
Moreover, large language models lack genuine understanding of context. They can string together words and phrases, but do they grasp the nuances, emotions, or cultural intricacies embedded in the language? No! True AI should possess the ability to empathize, understand context, and interpret information beyond mere pattern recognition.
Let's not forget the issue of biased outputs. These models are trained on massive datasets, often reflecting the inherent biases present in the data. As a result, they perpetuate and even amplify existing societal biases. True AI should be capable of recognizing and rectifying such biases, not reinforcing them.
Don't even get me started on the lack of common sense! These models can spew out absurd and nonsensical responses, showcasing their fundamental inability to apply common sense reasoning. True AI should be able to navigate the world with logic and sound judgment, not leave us scratching our heads at their bizarre outputs.
In conclusion, folks, it's high time we stopped throwing around the term "AI" when referring to these large language models. They are sophisticated tools with impressive capabilities, but they fall far short of what true artificial intelligence should embody. Let's demand more from the AI community and set higher standards instead of settling for the illusion of intelligence!
End of rant.
I think this is where the distinction between "used" and "refurbished" might come in handy. If you buy someone's used phone on eBay, then you're depending on the seller knowing and disclosing the true state of the device. Conversely, I just bought a refurbished iPhone XR from a large purveyor of home electronics for about $300, and it seems pretty pristine (and a huge step up from the battered iPhone 7 it replaced). If the vendor truly is refurbishing the phone by replacing the battery and verifying that it works generally, then a refurbished phone seems like a great investment if you don't need the latest and greatest features.
"Just puzzlement as to why you feel the need to be so unpleasant."
I will acknowledge that sentiment as being reasonable, and even though it's unlikely you'll read this comment, I'll respond for posterity's sake. The reason for my unpleasantness is that I have a great deal of pent-up disgust and frustration with the dogmatic and close-minded nature of many of the commentards here and in the wider Linux community, and it brings me a certain pleasure to lambast their perspectives. On the other hand, I suppose that being uncivil does somewhat undermine my persuasivness, so fair point to you for calling me out on it
You can find a contrasting (not necessarily conflicting) viewpoint here, and here, wherein the author challenges the notion that the Unix way is the best way, the idea that "everything is a file" is inherent to the fuzzy-headed concept of the Unix philosophy, and, for good measure, makes a case for systemd. I know that latter point will garner me a lot of downvotes from the initd zombies along with some long-winded angry screeds; rest assured that while you're frothing angrily at your keyboard, I'm sitting back and experiencing amusement.
We've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty. Since we haven't been able to reach you on your phone, we're contacting you via this message board. Please respond immediately with the best time and number to contact you as your car's safety may be at risk.
This picture is obviously staged and was taken against a green screen! You can tell because there are no stars in the background and the blue highlights on the Earth's atmosphere. God, NASA couldn't even be bothered to make it convincing! I guess they couldn't get Stanley Kubrick this time.
In re: the point about Ukrainian corruption (a subtle form of whataboutery if ever there was one), I'm never able to see the logical link between the country being as you describe and a justification of the Russian invasion, in particular the rape and murder of Ukrainian civilians, the kidnapping of children, and the wholesale destruction of entire cities. Perhaps you can help me see the connection.
If you review comment threads on this sort of issue, you will find many people wondering why critical infrastructure control systems are exposed to the Internet, especially with little-to-no security in place.
In re: BSG, my question was why Galactica's systems were exposed via wireless networking. The issue of having an internal network on the ship seems like it could have been mitigated by turning off Wi-Fi to prevent remote intrusions. (I know: it's just a show, and I should really just relax.)
On the one hand, I agree with helping Ukraine. On the other hand, I don't believe that Ukraine winning its war will abate these ransomware threats. If anything, Ukraine is drawing fire from the ransomware gangs as well as literal weapons fire, which means there's at least some incentive for the US and EU to keep the Ukraine war dragging on. Whether there's incentive to keep Ukraine from losing altogether is a different matter.
Any problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, obvious, and wrong. Right now, disclosure requirements seems to be working by hewing to a middle path between no accountability and total criminal liability. Businesses have some heat on them but not so much that they appear to be concealing the scope of the issue. Ban ransomware payments entirely, and a black market in ransomware payment facilitation seems likely to emerge, and ransomware payment will become an additional way for ransomware scum to blackmail victims. Since the current approach actually seems to be working, why not let it continue?
If I read the article correctly, the researchers were using machine learning misinformation detection algorithms to detect misinformation in AI-generated vs. human-generated content. It seems to me that a better test would be to see how humans do, insofar as we're ultimately the ones who have to make sense of the information. So far, all that's been demonstrated is that AIs are good at fooling other AIs, which is not necessarily useless information but is also not the whole picture.
The main issue I can see is that not all on-screen keyboards have precisely the same layout, and shifting to numbers or characters can really change the game. Any subtle update to the keyboard software would potentially change the layout and break interoperability with a dumb slip-on device, as well. At a minimum, you'd want a driver which reads information about the current layout and transmits it to the slip-on keyboard.
The other issue, of course, is that you then have to remove the keyboard from the device when you're no longer using it, although this could be addressed by making it foldable.
"The flipside of that coin: instead of 1 or 2 _really good_ versions of the Win9x UI, we have a dozen rubbish ones. That is not diversity. That is just lack of originality."
I think we're in violent agreement here. Rather than focusing on a finished and delightful experience, many, if not most, UX developers in the Linux world seem way more interested in putting their imprimatur on a new distro or slightly tweaked user interface. The result is as dull and unsatisfactory as the many brands of corn flakes in the cereal aisle dressed up in different packaging.
How about "consistency of interface"? In another thread, a poster lamented the failure of Linux to take off on the desktop, and one can point to the vast and confusing array of distributions and desktops as one likely cause. While Linux fanboys like to point to this level of choice as a virtue, it really only appeals to the sort of person who keeps pee in jars; for many other people, the question of deciding which of these innumerable desktops with their individual foibles, features, and issues is not even an interesting one, just an obstacle to productivity.
I just ran across this video, and this comment thread seems like as good a place as any to share it.
For real. I went to install a software package, wasn't paying attention, and inadvertently grabbed the Flatpak version, which weighed in at 2 GB compressed, 3.5 GB uncompressed. The same package in native deb format was less than 100 MB. That's one hell of a difference in both disk space and bandwidth!
Perhaps I'm dense, but it seems to me that if a person is taking courses about the science of computing, there must, at some point, be a mention of the real world operations of computing devices, which must necessarily include security in today's world. Or is there some bifurcation of education, where applied computer science is relegated to the dull profession of IT and its attendant concerns with minor problems like "security," "stability," and "usability," and theoretical, or "real," computer science, where the true geniuses dwell, is unsullied by the humdrum considerations of the everyday world?
On the one hand, I would not particularly put any stock in anything that Musk says. On the other hand, if he wants to take the piss out of the rent-seeking economic parasites known as the investor class, who are we to stop him? He has the luxury of blowing smoke up the asses of other self-important blowhards who are used to having their every prognostication taken as Gospel, and who wouldn't enjoy that?
In fairness to the F-35 (ugh, I can't believe I typed that), the requirements heaped upon it are somewhat mind-boggling and recall the spoof MoD document calling for flying unicorns in Charles Stross's novela "Equoid." The F-35 is required to have variants which:
* Can provide air interception
* Can provide close air support
* Can land on aircraft carriers
* Have STOVL capability
* Are stealthy
* Are supersonic
* Have super advanced avionics and flight control systems
* Have giant fairy wings and embody the magic of friendship (okay, this one I made up)
* Etc.
The whole project is a boondoggle, and someone should have strangled it in the crib or at least had the good sense to remove some of the more ridiculous requirements (stealth and CAS being an unnecessary combination of capabilities, for example), but here we are.