That was only my first point. In my second and third point I explained why education is not going to solve this problem. That’s like poisoning their candy and then educating them about it.
I’ll add to say that these AI applications only work because people trust their output. If everyone saw them for the cheap party tricks that they are, they wouldn’t be used in the first place.
The fact that they lack sentience or intentions doesn’t change the fact that the output is false and deceptive. When I’m being defrauded, I don’t care if the perpetrator hides behind an LLM or not.
It’s rather difficult to get people who are willing to lie and commit fraud for you. And even if you do, it will leave evidence.
As this article shows, AIs are the ideal mob henchmen because they will do the most heinous stuff while creating plausible deniability for their tech bro boss. So no, AI is not “just like most people”.
Ok, so your point is that people who interact with these AI systems will know that it can’t be trusted and that will alleviate the negative consequences of its misinformation.
The problems with that argument are many:
The vast majority of people are not AI experts and do in fact have a lot of trust in such systems
Even people who do know often have no other choice. You don’t get to talk to a human, it’s this chatbot or nothing. And that’s assuming the AI slop is even labelled as such.
Even knowing that the information can be misleading does not help much. If you sell me a bowl of candy and tell me that 10% of them are poisoned, I’m still going to demand non-poisoned candy. The fact that people can no longer rely on accurate information should be unacceptable.
Congratulations, you are technically correct. But does this have any relevance for the point of this article? They clearly show that LLMs will provide false and misleading information when that brings them closer to their goal.
Isn’t it wrong if an AI is making shit up to sell you bad products while the tech bros who built it are untouchable as long as they never specifically instructed the bot to lie?
That’s the main reason why AIs are used to make decisions. Not because they are any better than humans, but because they provide plausible deniability. It’s called an accountability sink.
As long as it’s not an exit node, nobody will be able to tell what the traffic is. It’s all encrypted including the metadata.
I think they mean uPnP
Turns out when Zuckerbot was talking about “allowing more speech on the platform”, he just meant more slurs.
How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.
No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.
A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.
Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?
“May be on shaky legal ground”
The law clearly states that Tiktok is banned and should be made inaccessible. The president cannot unilaterally change the law. They even got a lawyer to explain this to them.
Regardless of what you think of the ban, there can be no doubt about the fact that this is what the law says. No matter what Trump claims. If journalists show this level of misregard for truth and the rule of law, things are going to become much worse.
I’m sorry, but I think you’re mistaken. May I ask where you got this information?
As I understand it, the DPF is merely an executive order and not a federal law, so it’s very limited in what it can do. It doesn’t create the ability to enforce fines through US courts because breaking the GDPR is still perfectly legal under US law.
This loophole is still used unfortunately. For example, Clearview AI was fined by various data protection authorities, but their fines cannot be enforced so the company just never paid up.l
Even if you computer is not exposed to the internet: are you certain that every other device on the network is safe (even on public wifi)? Would you immediately raise the alarm if you saw a second printer in the list with the same name, or something like “Print to file”? I think I personally could fall for that under the right circumstances.
Putin couldn’t care less about the support from some random programmers. Be realistic, what do you expect them to do? Take up arms? Protest and get imprisoned? Vote in the sham elections?
Targeting random civilians in hopes of political change is the strategy of terrorists.
Nerve gas also doesn’t have morals. It just kills people in a horrible way. Does that mean that we shouldn’t study their effects or debate whether they should be used?
At least when you drop a bomb there is no doubt about your intent to kill. But if you use a chatbot to defraud consumers, you have plausible deniability.