• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • AI bots never had rights to waive. Their work is not their work.

    This is only partially true. In the US (which tends to set the tone on copyright, but other jurisdictions will weigh in over time) generative AI cannot be considered an “author.” That doesn’t mean that other forms of rights don’t apply to AI generated works (for example, AI generated works may be treated as trade secrets and probably will be accepted for trademark purposes).

    Also, all of the usual transformations which can take work from the public domain and result in a new copyrightable derivative also apply.

    This is a much more complex issue than just, “AI bots never had rights to waive.”




  • There are valid concerns with regard to bidet use. They do result in aerosolized particulates in greater number than results from wiping, which means you are literally breathing more feces.

    Is it enough to be problematic? Probably not, but that may also depend on how aggressively/frequently you use them.

    See also:

    • Ali, Wajid, et al. “Comparing bioaerosol emission after flushing in squat and bidet toilets: Quantitative microbial risk assessment for defecation and hand washing postures.” Building and Environment 221 (2022): 109284.
    • Abney, S. E., et al. “Toilet hygiene—review and research needs.” Journal of Applied Microbiology 131.6 (2021): 2705-2714.


  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.networktoTechnology@lemmy.worldPasswords
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know it can be hard to have your ideas quedtioned, but at least try to be civil. I never questioned your intentions, yet youre acting like im crazy.

    I think that’s all you. I have never suggested that you are crazy. I suggested that calling Microsoft software “safe” as opposed to Linux which is, “insecure,” sounds like trolling. But that’s because it sounds like trolling. No crazy stated or implied.

    A walled garden is obviously more secure than an open source project because nobody can even see the code to find vulnerabilities in it.

    You should learn more about the world of software. Seriously. Security experts have been reasonably unanimous in their support of the “Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow” approach to software security for decades, even while they have criticized it as a mantra that ignores the flaws in a presumption of open source software security.

    But just to put it in a simple logically sealed box: Microsoft’s source code has been leaked several times, and of course, bad actors probably have gained access to it throughout the years without such public knowledge. This means that the fundamental difference between Microsoft’s proprietary codebase and open source codebases is not, cannot be the availability of source code. Rather, it is the ability for independent groups to review the code on an ongoing basis.

    When the only difference is independent review, the only possible result is higher security.

    I understand that you like horses. You ride one every day, and you might have evwn named your horse. The fact is that its time to buy a car.

    None of this constitutes a logical refutation to the examples I provided, which are critical components of modern software development and deployment.

    Source: I’m a professional software release engineer who has worked with many of the world’s largest corporations.

    Quality software costs money

    For starters, this is unfounded cargo culting. There is no evidence for this at all. I can point to dozens of very expensive piles of crufty old software that no one should ever go near, and also to some free software that is literally foundational to the modern software world.

    Money has nothing to do with the quality of software, but you’re also mistaken if you think open source software is free. You can pay IBM millions of dollars for a suite of enterprise-ready open source software. Most of the cost in such software is rarely the software itself. It’s services, support, training and customization.

    Throwing rocks is also simpler than firing a gun, yet modern militaries arent training slingers anymore

    But they are succeeding wildly by using largely open source software running on open hardware for drones, networking, battlefield analysis, logistics, etc.


  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.networktoTechnology@lemmy.worldPasswords
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The best example of this is Linux.

    Ouch… so, you might want to learn more about technology before commenting in a Technology community…

    why does a modern operating system require you to use a terminal

    Because a terminal is one of the most powerful modes of interaction ever invented. It can serve as a relatively low-tech UI, but it is also simple enough to be used as a machine interface. It is lightweight, works even when other protocols and interfaces are thwarted by infrastructure issues, because it is simple text, but also meant to be read by a human, it can make for a great interface for logging, you don’t have to guess at which obscure standard (if any) to use to talk to it, compliance with relevant standards is baked into nearly every language ever written, etc.

    Try building a system like Kubernetes on graphical UIs… I dare you.

    Its THE example of ancient software being pushed on to niave techies

    What industry are you working in?! AWS is nearly all Linux. Google Cloud is nearly all Linux. Android is Linux. Hell, even Microsoft finally relented and is now strongly supporting their Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) because it’s necessary for supporting modern cloud applications.

    that would rather have an insecure open source project than a safe, walled garden like Microsoft Windows 11.

    Okay, this has to be a troll… right? This is a troll? Please tell me you can’t be serious.


  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.networktoTechnology@lemmy.worldPasswords
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t say obsolete because that implies it’s not really used anymore.

    I’m not sure where you heard someone use the word “obsolete” that way, but I assure you that there are thousands if not millions of examples of obsolete technologies in constant and everyday use.




  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.networktoTechnology@lemmy.worldPasswords
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    It MIGHT not be as bad as you think. If the UI was just terrible at communicating and what it actually meant was, “that password is in our database of known compromised passwords,” then that would be reasonable. Google does this now too, but I think they only do it after the fact (e.g. you get a warning that your password is in a database of compromised passwords).


  • Tyler_Zoro@ttrpg.networktoTechnology@lemmy.worldPasswords
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fun fact: password controls like this have been obsolete since 2020. Standards that guide password management now focus on password length and external security features (like 2FA and robust password encryption for storage) rather than on individual characters in passwords.




  • What you are describing is true of older LLMs. GPT4, it’s less true of. GPT5 or whatever it is they are training now will likely begin to shed these issues.

    The shocking thing that we discovered that lead to all of this is that this sort of LLM continues to scale in capabilities with the quality and size of the training set. AI researchers were convinced that this was not possible until GPT proved that it was.

    So the idea that you can look at the limitations of the current generation of LLM and make blanket statements about the limitations of all future generations is demonstrably flawed.




  • There are four stanzas to the Star Spangled Banner (the US national anthem) and what you typically here at sporting events is only the first.

    Bonus fun fact, the fourth stanza contains the line that, in the 1860s became the shorter, “In God We Trust,” motto on coinage that eventually became the national motto of the US in the 1950s (which was also when it was added to paper money). That original line from the fourth stanza was, “And this be our motto - ‘In God is our trust.’”