TootSweet @ TootSweet @lemmy.world

Posts

23

Comments

1,706

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wait, is this an interview?

I'd be... uh... a t-rex... because, uh... I'm not afraid to... uh... take initiative?

Nice! Thanks for clarifying that. It definitely puts some of the hypotheses to rest. I imagine some of the people saying it was staged were just too swept up in the AI bubble hype to admit to themselves or others that their Lord and Savior Generative AI could be so dumb as to do that sort of thing without a human faking it.

Sure, but LLMs are also sufficiently prone to spontaneously doing weird stuff like that that it's very believable that it's authentic/organic. And there's definitely Python code in Gemini's training data.

I don't think this is Gemini trying to run some of its own code to save facts about the user and whoops displaying the code it was trying to run to the user rather than running it or anything like that. That's not how software works, and not how LLMs work.

More likely somewhere in Gemini's training data, there's one or more code examples (specifically Python code examples, by the looks of it) that have something to do with the user's prompt. The relationship between Python code examples and the user's prompt may well be extremely nonobvious, but there'd have to be something about the prompt that made Gemini hallucinate that.

Source: Am software engineer. Though I don't have any hands-on experience with generative AI to speak of. I do think generative AI is a bullshit hype bubble, though.

I imagine sabots would do pretty well against graphics cards.

I... doubt it?

I took the liberty of looking in the developer tools as it failed, and there was a 500 response. The connection to Hulu's servers was all over HTTPS and I didn't get any certificate warning, so unless my ISP managed to get Hulu's private key or got with a corrupt registrar willing to issue a valid replacement certificate, no ISP should be able to change response codes on a man-in-the-middle basis or a redirecting-traffic-to-a-hostile-server basis.

And given how many people have reported issues, I doubt it's specific to any particular ISPs.

Net neutrality being dead is a huge bummer, but I don't think this can be blamed on that.

What's the minimum you'd count as strong enough evidence to justify anger at the accused?

frysuspicious.jpg

Yeah, I guess I can understand the cognitive dissonance making people want to deny everything, but it doesn't seem like there's much room to doubt the veracity of the case against Gaiman. Really, that article has been a long time coming. Anyone paying much attention to Amanda Palmer (Gaiman's ex-wife) has had plenty of clues this was coming, even if the full extent of the sheer depravity of the details weren't publicly known until now.

Also, I haven't read the Vulture article yet, but from what I've heard, it makes it sound like Palmer was complicit. She has also withdrawn from public places/platforms (like from her Patreon) since its publication.

Nope. I put guacamole and sardines on it. (100% serious here.)

Yeah, that's specifically who I suspected it might be about. Either him or P. Diddy. But the news of Neil Gaiman is more fresh right now.

Are we talking about anyone in particular here?

Our Lord and Savior Almond Flour forgives all who humbly accept it into their stomach.

Low-carb bread is the one true religion.

So go post Kropotkin on https://thedonald.win/ or whatever domain they're using now-a-days.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. Yes, even though the pro-Trump folks don't comprise a majority of Americans, it's exceedingly concerning that they're as close to 50% of the U.S. population as they are. I don't think I said otherwise, though. I also didn't say anything about whether the anti-Trump majority (if indeed it is a majority) is/isn't/was/wasn't/should be/shouldn't be "silent."

Were the anti-Trump folks really "silent" before the election? Was there something they weren't saying that they should have? 'Cuz it's not like there wasn't anybody campaigning against him.

the majority of people voted for him

Eh... That's not quite accurate. Current estimates are that 77,301,997 people voted for Trump, which is less than 50% of the 155,211,283 total votes cast. (But Kamala, the second-most-voted-for candidate got less than that at 75,017,626.)

But only about 64% of those eligible to vote voted.

So, not even half of those who did vote in the 2024 presidential election voted for Trump, let alone those who were eligible to voted, let alone all "people" in the U.S.. But the ones who voted for Trump comprised many more than the number of people who voted for any other candidate.

Sources: one and two.

American here.

First, you're right. About basically all of what you said above.

I think you particularly hit the nail on the head with this:

I’m always thinking “dude, you need to chill” cause literally no one is attacking them and they’re fully secure. But it seems like they’re always searching for a fight or something.

The media here, funded by the big corporations, manufacture tons of FUD ("fear, uncertainty, and doubt.") Things to be scared of. "They're putting chemicals in the water that's turning the frogs" (and by extension, your kids) "gay." "The 'woke mafia' is trying to convert your kids to atheism." "The Democrats are going to take your guns so they can install a totalitarian one world government without any resistance." Most of it's not true at all. Some has a nugget of truth but it's not actually any threat.

I will say the Republicans are worse about this than the Democrats (the Democrats' concerns are more legitimate than the Republicans'), but the Democrats are far from immune. Both are living in fantasy worlds.

...until something very bad happens like the second civil war...

Indeed there's plenty of rhetoric out there pushing the idea that the U.S. is in a civil war. Between the woke antifa (short for "antifascist") and the fascist conspiracy theorists.

Does it really do any good for the drive to be encrypted if it doesn't require a password (or Yubikey or retinal scan or other authentication factor) on boot? If you're just going to put the plaintext key/password on the same drive but in a partition that's not encrypted, there's no point encrypting the drive, right?

So maybe "it asks for a password on boot" is more of a "works as intended" thing?

How will I access the encrypted devices after installation? (System Startup) During system startup you will be presented with a passphrase prompt. ...

The quote above is from Fedora documentation here

This is your root FS that's encrypted that we're talking about, correct?

If you really want an encrypted root but no password on boot and the plaintext decryption password/key on the same drive, there are ways to do it. (It would probably require customizing the initramfs somehow. But it's Linux, and Linux certainly isn't going to prevent you from doing such things. Just try to dissuade you.)

If we're not talking about a root filesystem, that would likely change some things. If it's Luks, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter particularly where on your filesystem the key was so long as your /etc/crypttab refers to it. I'd say that sort of setup would probably only provide additional security if the encrypted drive is an external drive that you might worry could be stolen or physically accessed when the attacker doesn't have physical access to your root filesystem.

Also, if you shared what encryption scheme was in use (Luks, Anaconda, etc), that would probably help as well.

Edit: Ah. Ok. You gave more info while I was typing the above response. What you want is unlocking via ssh. For sure.

Not a YouTube channel, and this is probably more humorous than you had in mind, but otherwise that pretty much describes Existential Comics.