I don’t know about government overall, but the military and HHS have has some of the most stringent security stances I’ve encountered. To the point where just working for them was a massive chore. (How effective they were I guess I don’t know, but working for them sucked.)

That said, I’ll take what you said on faith, because I think you’re spot on with everything else.

They have always been techno-punks: anti-establishment and more style than substance. That being said, if nothing else, they were able to shine a light on shitty people and that’s more than most folks do.

I wish they were getting into organizations and dumping gigs of documents detailing illegal and anti-consumer/citizen activities, but money and law enforcement really goes after anything with an actually impact that might affect wealth. No one actually gives a shit about a website being down. (Excepting like… Amazon or Google and good fucking luck with that.)

So it’s like a flaming bag of shit left on a porch. They take care of it and shout “you damn punks!” But if you burn the barn down, every cop in the county will be interrogating everyone they can find until you are caught.

I think they want the only choices to be utter destruction or communism. But unfortunately when it takes the alternative being global catastrophe in order for your politics to sound reasonable, that doesn’t speak well of your politics.

Why do so many people actively wish the world was a worse place?

Voyager provides the ability to block whole instances. Is that not default Lemmy functionality? I’ve been using the Voyager WPA since it was wefwef, so sometimes I forget what’s native and what isn’t.

I don’t remember the specifics because it was damn near 40 years ago, but I had a teacher tell the class that everyone has a sort of 6th-sense sight through an invisible 3rd eye in the middle of your forehead. And her example was that blind people will pick out clothes by colors or tell someone they were wearing an ugly tie. Which I’ve never seen, at least not outside of some sort of Hallmark Romance Drama quality religious schlock.

I never had any problem correcting a teacher if they made some calculation error or misquoted something out of the book (I wasn’t an asshole who corrected every single thing, just the ones that might be material to everyone else’s understanding of the lesson).

But when confronted with a teacher spewing utter bullshit, I was at a total loss for a response. I can’t imagine anyone else believed it, either, but what a fucking loon. My sister was/is blind and the only superhuman power she had was being fucking annoying.

I don’t even know if that was the worst/only one, but that’s the one that has always stood out for me.

I guess you could add that American Exceptionalism was taught as a legitimate point of view rather than nationalist bullshit.

Eh… what I really wanted to know was when they are going to clear the wreck and whether that stupid mother fucker died so I shouldn’t flip them off as I drive by. Can Google Maps tell me that?

I didn’t really want to out myself as the asshole wishing for someone’s death. But here we are.

I didn’t like Twitter as a social platform, but I did use it a lot for news on current events, such as how is the traffic on my route home, and why am I stuck in traffic, and how many miles ahead of me is the fucking accident?

Handy for communication during some kind of emergency that floods the phone network, but that’s pretty niche. Anyway, I interact a little on Bluesky but mostly it’s just a time killer like TikTok or whatever. Twitter was super easy to quit between the Musk take over and moving away from DC.

both OpenAI and Microsoft are probing whether DeepSeek used OpenAI’s application programming interface (API) without permission to train its own models on the output of OpenAI’s systems, an approach referred to as distillation.

That would definitely show up in the quality of responses. Surely they have better and cheaper training sources…

“But if I don’t work with and promote Nazis, I will make less money! How will the Nazis watch my ads?”

Honestly, I don’t need to see reasons. Or rather, I already see the reasons. What I don’t see any reason for is staying unless you’re a fascist.

Every time someone posts something on that place or a link to there, I just assume they are the sort of person who is fine being in the room with Nazis.

As we just lost any sort of moral high ground, ok. 2 years ago maybe I’d be worried. 9 years ago I’d definitely have been worried. Today, the enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Keystroke patterns and rhythms is above and beyond, though. That’s not remotely necessary and the kind of thing that can only be used to track an individual across multiple platforms and attempts at anonymity. I don’t know how effective it is at that, but that is the sole purpose unless maybe they are training a better autocorrect tool and think that would be helpful.

At any rate, that’s the point where I noped out. They are completely honest about putting every effort into identifying users and associating them with real identity. Such a system would be quite capable of de-anonymizing marketing profiles, health data, etc. by correlating vast amounts of data.

I’m straight and I’ve been accused of being gay before for being an intellectual and compassionate and not demonstrating an affinity for sports and similar competing with other men. I’ve also been accused of being trans before because of an affinity for playing female characters in tabletop (I like diverse groups so I often play female or black characters because many other folks won’t) and computer RPGs (I prefer to stare at a woman’s ass all day over a man’s and I tend to enjoy the voice acting better).

So I guess don’t do anything I do.

I service can only do so much. Some folks are just dumb or mentally unwell. The question is did they do enough to communicate the limitations of AI. Free speech is the wrong argument. I think we are in agreement other than it sounds like maybe you are assuming they didn’t communicate that well enough and I’m assuming they did. That’s what the court case should be about.

If they don’t want responsibility, they need to very publicly say they’re providing it without any warranty or implication of it solving any particular problem, which is why FOSS licenses put that into their terms.

Completely agree. Every single AI should come with this disclaimer. Because while it can solve all kinds of problems, it’s definitely not going to do it correctly every time, no matter what. Which is really the whole point of what I said.

The AI tried to talk him out of killing himself and responded as though he would instead come home to her. I’m not sure what’s unreasonable about that. Hell, I’d justify far less reasonable responses because an AI is incapable of reason.

There is no thought process. The AI looks at the existing conversation and then responds using words a human would be statistically likely to. It doesn’t understand anything it’s saying. It doesn’t understand human life, nor the fragility or preciousness of it. It doesn’t know what life and death are. It doesn’t know about depression or suicide. It doesn’t know the difference between real and make believe. It just spits out stochastic tokens. And it does so in a way that it’s impossible to understand why it outputs what it does on the scale of a human lifetime because every single token depends on billions of parameters, each informed by every single bit of training data.

For as smart as AI appears to be, it’s just a completely dumb computation black box. Exactly in the way power tools and fire are dumb.

What single point of failure? In fact, what was even the failure here? The AI was roleplaying and has no capacity to understand the person it’s talking with is taking it seriously or is mentally unstable.

Why would you keep it from saying that when in certain contexts that’s perfectly acceptable? I explained exactly that point in another post.

This is sort of a tangent in this case because what the AI said was very oblique—exactly the sort of thing it would be impossible to guard against. It said something like “come home to me,” which would be patently ridiculous to censor against, and impossible to anticipate that this would be the reaction to that phrase.

Those rails are full of holes and always will be because patching them is deterministic. It’s just as impossible to write exact rules about what an AI can and can’t say as it is to dictate what people can say. It will always, always, always be possible for an AI to say something malicious no matter how well intentioned the person running it is or how much effort they put in.

So what should be the legally mandated amount of effort? Is it measured in dollars? Lines of code? Because you won’t ever fix the problem, so the question is what is the required amount before it’s on the user to just use their own fucking brain ?