It’s the CIA, that kind of thing would probably get you put in the priority recruitment pool. That’s practically their bread and butter.

Hmm, if it doesn’t honor that setting being changed after the initial install it could be possible to set it during install to get the benefits, then change it post install to make other apps behave normally.

Yeah pretty much this. My understanding of the way LLMs function is that they operate on statistical associations of words which would amount to categories in Category Theory. Basically the training phase is classifying words into categories based on the examples in the training input. Then when you feed it a prompt it just uses those categories to parse and “solve” your prompt. It’s not “mysterious” it’s just opaque because it’s an incredibly complicated model. Exactly the sort of thing that people are really bad at working with, but which computers are really good with.

Most likely the terms say that you agree to go through individual binding arbitration rather than a lawsuit which the courts have found to be legal and enforceable. It’s really shitty and has become corporations favorite weapon to use against people, particularly because the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged. Contractually mandated arbitration really needs to be invalidated. Arbitration is a fine alternative if both parties want to go that route but it should never be forced on someone, particularly because of some bullshit EULA.

It is reductive to say that piracy is just a service problem. There are lots of people who will try to save the money. But a lot of those people wouldn’t spend much if any money either way. They would just skip most content, or watch with friends or similar. There is a huge group of people (myself included) that would happily pay a significant amount for content if they provided a good experience. But they are too busy failing to stop piracy to bother giving a good experience.

Yeah I mean you’ve basically got three district groups at play.

The first group, either have no money or no interest in your goods or services. They might turn to piracy if it’s available, but even if it isn’t they’re still not buying anything from you. DRM is pointless to this group because it’s not stopping anything.

The second group are the marginal cases. They potentially have the money to buy your products, but maybe they’re pinching pennies or they aren’t convinced your products are worth the price you’re asking for them. A lot of pirates of Adobe PhotoShop a couple decades back would have fallen into this group. DRM might be effective on this group, but there’s a strong argument to be made that it’s going to cost you just as many sales as it earns you, and ultimately doesn’t actually stop piracy, merely delays it a bit. You’d likely see as many or more sales from this group if you removed the DRM and added more features or cut your prices

The last group are your paying customers. They’re already happily (or at least grudgingly) giving you money. The only thing DRM is doing for this group is making their experience worse and likely pushing them towards that second group.

There’s basically no group where DRM is really improving things. At best you’re breaking even, at worst it’s costing you sales, to say nothing of the development costs of implementing the DRM in the first place.

Yep. DRM has been and continues to be a complete waste of everyone’s time that only makes things worse for paying customers. Pirates get the best experience and then companies wonder why they struggle to get people to pay for inferior experiences. Gabe Newell hit the nail on the head over a decade ago when he said:

The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates.

Instead companies keep doing the exact opposite, and surprise piracy isn’t impacted at all.

That would embolden the anti-trans crowd.

Unfortunately no matter the outcome there’s likely danger there which is why legal protections are going to be critical. If it doesn’t accurately detect trans people they’d argue it’s evidence that being trans is a choice and that they could just decide to “be normal”. If it does accurately detect trans people in some ways that’s even more dangerous because now you’ve created a trans detector that could potentially be used to target people.

Ultimately from a scientific perspective there’s still so much we don’t know about how our brains work and even less known about how gender and sexual orientation are determined. Projects like this provide valuable clues about all of that, but there’s still so much that’s unknown that any result is potentially useful. I personally would find it more interesting though if it did accurately detect someone whose trans as it would suggest there’s physically detectable brain differences.

Because you very clearly don’t understand how LLMs work and are describing something that’s impossible. If you did have something that worked like that it wouldn’t be a LLM, it would be something fundamentally different and closer to a true AI. There are no true AI in existence currently, and just trying to train a LLM using its inputs won’t change that, it would just make the output worse by introducing noise.

For me it’s the “l”.

It seems like Arc is popular among users of Chrome, but there’s little reason for anyone already on a better browser to use it. Every single person I’ve heard saying good things about Arc is a long time Chrome user.

Assuming I’m understanding your point that would be a mis-categorization. I’m assuming you meant a straight non-trans male was scanned and the result predicted a female brain was scanned (a result matching neither the sex nor gender)? I was saying it would be less interesting if it scanned say a female-to-male trans person and returned a result of female (correctly guessing the sex but not the gender), than if it had returned a result of male (that is correctly guessing the gender but not the sex). It would also be interesting if it could detect trans people in general as their own unique group.

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

LLMs can’t “talk to each other” as they don’t think, they’re more like a really complicated echo chamber. You yell your prompt into it, it bounces around and when the echo comes back you have your result. You could feed the output of one LLM into the input of another, but after a few rounds of bouncing back and forth you’d just get garbage out. Furthermore a LLM can’t learn from its queries as the queries are missing all the metadata necessary to build the model.

I would be curious what this would predict for trans (including those both on and off hormone therapy), intersex, or homosexual individuals. My guess is that at a minimum in those cases it’s accuracy of predicting either their gender or sex would be very poor, although it would be absolutely fascinating if it accurately predicted their gender rather than their sex. The opposite result (predicting sex but not gender) would also be interesting but less so.

Ironically the first thought I had looking at this was “this would make a really great prop for some scifi movie”. My second thought was “this looks horrendous to actually use as a laptop”. Non-physical buttons suck as car manufacturers recently discovered, and aside from looking cool there’s virtually no positives to a transparent laptop screen and a whole raft of negatives.

So yeah, very cool concept, utterly crap product.

To be fair, that only mostly works. You do sometimes still need to reboot even with that, but most of the time yeah, it works fine without rebooting.

Russia’s strategy even going back to WW2 has been to throw bodies at the problem until it goes away. I think most people were just assuming that in the modern Internet connected era that that strategy would fall apart. That at some point the Russian people would get fed up with seeing their people being sent off to be slaughtered over a piece of land that means nothing to Russia. The surprise is really that that hasn’t happened yet, or that Putin hasn’t decided to cut his losses and declare the job finished and withdraw.

At some point Russia will run out of bodies to toss into the meat grinder, it’s just a question of if there will be anything left of Ukraine by that point or not.

As much as this has been (and continues to be) an absolute disaster for the Ukrainian people, from the perspective of NATO no matter the outcome this is a win. They’ve managed to get a fairly accurate look at Russia’s current military capabilities (laughably bad). Russia has badly hurt themselves even in this short period of time and the longer it goes on the worse it will be. And lastly NATO didn’t really need to do anything but donate or even sell some old hardware stockpiles they had lying around collecting dust. From a purely logical standpoint this is an absolute win for everyone but Russia and Ukraine. Even if Putin ultimately “wins” and takes over Ukraine he hasn’t really accomplished much of value.

Replaced it with Eset not long after that because even back then it was going downhill fast. Then I ditched Eset about a decade ago because Windows Defender had finally reached a point where it was pretty much as good as anything else.

Setting aside the matter of “AI”, this is a fusion reactor, not fission, so there’s no scenario in which this can possibly cause an explosion. The absolute worst case scenario is that containment fails and the plasma melts and destroys the electromagnets and superconductors of the containment vessel before dissipating. It would be a very expensive mistake to repair and the reactor would be out of commission until it was fixed, but in terms of danger to anyone not literally standing right next to the reactor there is none. Even someone standing next to the reactor would probably be in more danger from the EM fields of a correctly functioning reactor than they would be from the plasma of a failed one.

https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk?si=7FmcrXRca20CQCOy

This is a little short on details, but so far I hate everything I’m reading. SMS based OTP is already the worst least secure form of OTP and now they want to make that P2P? It doesn’t even mention if the OTP is sent encrypted in any fashion, it only warns that relays can view the phone numbers of OTP recipients.