Yeah, I read them as a teen and really liked them, so read them (well, the Belgariad, at least, then kinda stalled on the next series) to my daughter more recently and didn’t find them quite as enjoyable. They were still fun but full of a bunch of questionable shit. I’d say it was very boomeresque with a lot of its humour. Also the weird recurring “oh drat, you have out-negotiated me again, Silk!”

Yeah, I kinda wish the site generated a hash or something because I’ve got an extension that fakes the canvas results, but the site says those identifiers are unique for me… But are they the same unique (which indicates the extension isn’t doing anything) or different each time (which might even make the others less useful if it aggregates everything?

I did notice earlier today that the YouTube recommendations were all actually related to the video I was currently watching instead of it trying to get me to go down a rabbit hole I’ve already been down even logged out, like it does on my desktop where I haven’t installed that extension.

I like that they covered all the possibilities for the do not track flag, as I saw it as useless from the very start, as by then I realized the honour system didn’t mean shit and it would just be another piece of data.

Maybe it had also found a 46 000 000 year old mosquito in amber and had just finished drinking that beautifully aged blood when the tree sap struck again.

Flowers and grass, too.

Sharks showed up in the fossil record at about the same time the Appalachian mountains stopped their mountain building activity, 450 mya.

Very efficiently.

Or for a less cheeky answer, I believe the method they used at a high level was pointing a camera at a few guide stars, so the 30 lines of assembly might have been a loop that checked those cameras for any drift of those stars and did a correction pulse of the rotation boosters to keep them centered. Oh, one of the references might have been the signal strength from home, too (signal gets weaker if the antenna isn’t aligned).

Unless it was an emergency, it might only need to look at 5 pixels to determine alignment and correction.

Also, just because it’s assembly doesn’t mean it can’t call subroutines and functions, so that 30 lines might be misleading in the way those several lines in the other reply have way more going on. That said, if it’s just doing a pixel brightness comparison, that’s one line to read the central pixel, then for each direction one line to read that pixel, one more to compare, one line to jump to next comparison if center is brighter, one instruction to initiate correction burn, one instruction to stop it immediately after, then one instruction to return to the start of the loop… Which comes to 22 lines total, leaving 8 for logging or maybe timing the burn. And that’s assuming their instruction set didn’t have anything fancy like read and compare, compare and jump, or a single instruction burn pulse.

It actually sounds like they are allowing bots as long as a human can intervene and is willing to verify their identity if their automated activity is detected. They are embracing slop users as long as they give them their data.

I think the main reason for the announcement, though, was to deal with the rumours that everyone will need to verify their identity (which this post seems to assume is still the case).

Personally, I’d rather see reddit remain the mainstream version of this just so that people who want to run bots for whatever reason have more reason to do it there than here. Because the commercial level ones will have more resources than lemmy admins will have to deal with it.

Just flashbang every room before you enter it, just to be safe.

If you want a less explicit example of what he does that doesn’t really spoil anything, he picks some random family’s house as a base and tells the kids to stay out of sight. Iirc they just stand in a closed closet because they can’t disobey.

Yeah, it’s good enough that it even had me fooled, despite all my “it just correlates words” comments. It was getting to the desired result, so I was starting to think that the framework around the agentic coding AIs was able to give it enough useful context to make the correlations useful, even if it wasn’t really thinking.

But it’s really just a bunch of duct tape slapped over cracks in a leaky tank they want to put more water in. While it’s impressive how far it has come, the fundamental issues will always be there because it’s still accurate to call LLMs massive text predictors.

The people who believe LLMs have achieved AGI are either just lying to try to prolong the bubble in the hopes of actually getting it to the singularity before it pops or are revealing their own lack of expertise because they either haven’t noticed the fundamental issues or think they are minor things that can be solved because any instance can be patched.

But a) they can only be patched by people who know the correction (so the patches won’t happen in the bleeding edge until humans solve the problem they wanted AI to solve), and b) it will require an infinite number of these patches even to just cover all permutations of everything we do know.

Here’s an example I ran into, since work wants us to use AI to produce work stuff, whatever, they get to deal with the result.

But I had asked it to add some debug code to verify that a process was working by saving the in memory result of that process to a file, so I could ensure the next step was even possible to do based on the output of the first step (because the second step was failing). Get the file output and it looks fine, other than missing some whitespace, but that’s ok.

And then while debugging, it says the issue is the data for step 1 isn’t being passed to the function the calls if all. Wait, how can this be, the file looks fine? Oh when it added the debug code, it added a new code path that just calls the step 1 code (properly). Which does work for verifying step 1 on its own but not for verifying the actual code path.

The code for this task is full of examples like that, almost as if it is intelligent but it’s using the genie model of being helpful where it tries to technically follow directions while subverting expectations anywhere it isn’t specified.

Thinking about my overall task, I’m not sure using AI has saved time. It produces code that looks more like final code, but adds a lot of subtle unexpected issues on the way.

An alternative that will avoid the user agent trick is to curl | cat, which just prints the result of the first command to the console. curl >> filename.sh will write it to a script file that you can review and then mark executable and run if you deem it safe, which is safer than doing a curl | cat followed by a curl | bash (because it’s still possible for the 2nd curl to return a different set of commands).

You can control the user agent with curl and spoof a browser’s user agent for one fetch, then a second fetch using the normal curl user agent and compare the results to detect malicious urls in an automated way.

A command line analyzer tool would be nice for people who aren’t as familiar with the commands (and to defeat obfuscation) and arguments, though I believe the problem is NP, so it won’t likely ever be completely foolproof. Though maybe it can be if it is run in a sandbox to see what it does instead of just analyzed.

It’s financial fraud with a romance hook. It’s like nigerian prince scams, except instead of some rich prince who will pay you back many times over, the motivation is helping your long distance lover with some big financial problem that came up.

It’s not just referring to people getting catfished (it’s possible the other person is even real, because it’s a lot more effective when they can do video chats and video chat sex… And it might even involve human trafficking and/or slavery and that woman’s whole “job” is to have video chat sex with targets).

That said, I think those are all just excuses, valid threats or not.

Personally, one of the reasons I mostly play solo video games is so that if I feel like taking a break, I can do so without affecting anyone else or needing to wait until everyone is ready for a break. Sometimes I think I want to play a game and then am just not feeling it a few mins in. Or I’ll be really into a game for months and then just drop it when that obsession passes.

Playing together is a big commitment!

You might get better results by going outside their channels and using legal options. Like not through the courts, but I think some jurisdictions have a law that you data must be deleted if a request is sent in writing or something like that. You might also be able to request they send you all the data they have (though this might cost money because they print it and mail it). I remember someone did that with their Tinder data for some article about how shitty Tinder is, though it depends on where you live.

Same with the idea of “true names” in general.

Not the original commenter, but your reply looks like it’s for termaxima’s comment (about hallucinations being a mathematical certainty).

They might have set up the user agreement for it. Stackexchange did and their whole business model was about catching businesses where some worker copy/pasted code from a stackexchange answer and getting a settlement out of it.

I agree with you in principle (hell, I’d even take it further and think only trademarks should be protected, other than maybe a short period for copyright and patent protection, like a few years), but the legal system might disagree.

Edit: I’d also make trademarks non-transferrable and apply to individuals rather than corporations, so they can go back to representing quality rather than business decisions. Especially when some new entity that never had any relation to the original trademark user just throws some money at them or their estate to buy the trust associated with the trademark.

Yes, but they did establish that one of the guards is no longer living and that giving barbarians riddles is dangerous for everyone involved.