Probably got some parachute built in.

Of course if you care to look carefully, and sometimes closely.

Deeply discounted, yet with the satisfying conclusion that our external clients get! /s

I guess people will cheat and hide it everywhere.

While corporate America focuses on mainly profits, “fighting for human rights” are just empty slogan, because corporate America is already exploiting human misery for profits. For government, it’s going to be “to prevent China from becoming the dominant tech power in the developing world” that’s going to drive this sort of initiative, which most likely will have mixed results or fail miserably altogether. Chinese exports are already driving the non-elite consumer markets in the developing worlds.

True.

• Automatic patch => automatic installation of malware

• Manual patch => unpatched vulnerabilities

Screwed either way.

Yeah, this is definitely a problem with brand new services, especially when the native app isn’t appealing. For example, I use Liftoff for Lemmy. Open-sourced✅ In official Appstore✅ Relatively transparent who the developer is✅ No special permission starting off✅ Relatively few downloads📛 .

When a mobile app doesn’t ask for permissions, it’s definitely less nerve-racking than the more permissive desktop environments where the apps don’t have to be special to do considerable damages.

Spokespeople for NCTA and pharmaceutical company Gilead said that they immediately paused their ad spending on X after CNN flagged their ads on the pro-Nazi account.

Alt-speak: we only care if the media report that our ad placements were next to questionable contents.

Apparently, Google has also taken to suck deez nuts.

Shoppers of Dell Australia’s website who were buying a computer would see an offer for a Dell display with a lower price next to a higher price with a strikethrough line. That suggested to shoppers that the price they’d pay for the monitor if they added it to their cart now would be lower than the monitor’s usual cost. But it turns out the strikethrough prices weren’t the typical costs. Sometimes, the lower price was actually higher than what Dell Australia typically charged.

Don’t believe in ads, folks. If prices are important for you, do you own research.

Whatever happens on the inside of a robotaxi is generally visible on the outside to bystanders and other motorists, The Standard notes of the AV’s “fishbowl-like” design.

“While [autonomous vehicles] will likely be monitored to deter passengers having sex or using drugs in them, and to prevent violence, such surveillance may be rapidly overcome, disabled or removed,” the study said. “Private [autonomous vehicles] may also be put to commercial use, as it is just a small leap to imagine Amsterdam’s Red Light District ‘on the move.’”

Convenient meetups, plus the additional benefits for certain fetishes.

But don’t worry, folks, we’ll take this opportunity to put even more surveillance tech in for you to keep you safe and meanwhile, perfectly maintain your privacy. 🤪

See https://programming.dev/comment/1803935

Yeah, some source say that the raised examples have been fixed by the different LLMs since exposure. The problem is algorithmic, so if you can follow the research, you may be able to come up with other strings that cause a problem.

There did seem to be a controversy in March about whether or not the word should go.

Haha, if you quickly skipped the “and people” part. Happen all the time. Brain cycles are expensive.

Those seem like questions for more research.

I bet it’s more pernicious because it is easy to incorporate AI suggestions. If you do your own research, you may have to think a bit if the references/search results may be bad, and you still have to put the info in your own words so that you don’t offend the copyright gods. With the AI help, well, the spellings are good, the sentences are perfectly formed, the information is plausible, it’s probably not a straight-forward copy, why not just accept?

I am being brainwashed by AI!

Here’s the paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581196

Abstract

If large language models like GPT-3 preferably produce a particular point of view, they may influence people’s opinions on an unknown scale. This study investigates whether a language-model-powered writing assistant that generates some opinions more often than others impacts what users write – and what they think. In an online experiment, we asked participants (N=1,506) to write a post discussing whether social media is good for society. Treatment group participants used a language-model-powered writing assistant configured to argue that social media is good or bad for society. Participants then completed a social media attitude survey, and independent judges (N=500) evaluated the opinions expressed in their writing. Using the opinionated language model affected the opinions expressed in participants’ writing and shifted their opinions in the subsequent attitude survey. We discuss the wider implications of our results and argue that the opinions built into AI language technologies need to be monitored and engineered more carefully.

OK. Then. I guess the summary would be like, the asteroid was more loose than we though, and we had no idea how the boulders got ejected from the surface because our impact.

Somehow, I found the lead scientist’s statement and the associated news to be click-baiting. Right, you crash something into a composite rock, and expect no ejecta from it. That’s pretty freaking believable. That’s like, the most basic physics you can expect from it. This is just to grab your attention so we can get more funding (which they may deserve, even if this is irritating), folks.