The filtration capabilities available to most users is pretty robust; depending on what you use to interact with the Fediverse. I thinik it would be possible to filter out problematic bots, users and even whole domain sources with the right kind of software.
Honestly I think the rate should’ve dropped by 2 or 3 whole percentage points (so like 200 or 300 basis).
The current rates are OBSCENELY HIGH and have not halted inflation even if they have attenuated it to some extent.
The Fed likely knew this damage would occur from this kind of tampering and only now are they acting to curb it.
I’m going to be bold enough to say we don’t have as wide of an AI/LLM issue on the Fediverse as the other platforms will have.
I’m certain that if someone did collect data from the Fediverse; it would become a hot topic and it might not be enough data anyways as the Fediverse is not mainstream enough normally. So the data and language collected here might skew in a few imaginable ways that one might find undesirable for a general model of word frequencies.
Also the fact that people might not appreciate that data being collected. Let’s be real. It’s too soon for such a project to begin. The AI TREND MUST DIE as it currently lives and it’s corpse must be rotted away completely. Now, in internet time that may not be all that long…a few to several years…the memory of the internet can be short-lived at times. It must, however, fade from the public conscience into some obscurity first.
Once the technology no longer lies in greedy hands again; new development can begin anew.
People need to stand firm against the needless RTOs and demands to be present in a workplace where your work consists largely of things you can do safely from the privacy of your own home.
Without more mass resignations when companies start to roll out RTOs like this; they will never learn. If you work at such a company; start looking for another job, even if you are willing to work in the office a few days a week. Punish them harshly for enforcing RTOs.
It occurs to me that adding a visual watermark might actually serve to obscure a visual watermarking scheme that is otherwise invisible by providing data that scrambles or breaks the watermark decoder itself.
Audio watermarks can be distorted in any number of ways; and it could be that some of the wildly poor audio quality in most cam-rips is probably the only way you can defeat the watermark; by using a LQ microphone and encoding the audio to a very limited bitrate and then re-upsampling; to defeat any subtle alterations a digital watermark might make to the audio waveform.
Watermarks are only an issue in-as-much as it is used to trace down which copy was leaked.
With modern digital projection systems; you don’t get a reel of film; you get a briefcase of [SS/HD]Ds containing the raw, encrypted, footage. The digital projection system will decrypt using provided keys. There’s no output except the standard ones for the theatre projectors and sound systems…so capturing the output is difficult.
If you do intercept the signal; the projection system might detect it; and refuse playback or wipe the decryption keys. Watermarking is also a danger; since your theater can get identified as the leak source and sued.
As I stated before; 5% is not significant enough. It won’t ensure the victory; it might barely even turn the tide. Depends on how Trump does.
In some states; that’s even within a margin of error, and might be close enough to cause certain states to enter run-offs…because we know the GOP is a bunch of sore losers.
I’m not accounting for State laws; which may in fact be stricter. I’m talking about Federal Laws which might not explicitly forbid such things; so long as they’re done in an actually safe manner by professionals.
But, as I said before, if the DEA believes it has the power to stop that none-the-less; that’s what they will do, without respect to if the law is actually legally unclear or borderline. Unfortunately many pharmaceutical places don’t care to invite the wrath of the DEA; even if what they’re doing could be considered permissible; so long as they do not synthesize an exact drug that the Feds specifically name as a controlled substance.
Again; IANAL either. But I do think there’s a lot of room for small compounding pharmacies to synthesize various drugs to meet a patient’s needs quickly while waiting for proper shipments to arrive. There’s lots of compounds that are life-sustaining that do not fall under the DEA banner of authority.
I’ll just leave this here.
If I’m going to be completely honest; I feel like these people in support of such a withdrawal of support (of Israel) are going to have to move the needle A LOT more than a mere 5% to get the attention they want.
Might be acceptable to get a little louder about your issue; and properly educate people about it.
Depending on how Vyvanse is Scheduled; it might be legal to privately make. If it’s not scheduled like a standard amphetamine; the DEA is powerless.
I have a sneaking suspicion it’s not illegal to compound this stuff. But IANAL; and it doesn’t matter if the DEA thinks it is and will hassle anyone trying.
I firmly think this would be a boon for many people; owning one of these is likely a lifeline that even small town physicians could utilize to dispense drugs freely or cheaply to patients in need.
This is something that I think small-town pharmacies could use to create compounds in cases of drug shortages. I think tools and programs and small labs like what are discussed in the article are a positive force for good; and that they should be not only allowed, but encouraged, for many drugs that are expensive, unavailable to someone in need and can be readily synthesized safely with a basic college level of chemistry training by someone in a pharmacy.
I think the potential risks and downsides are small right now; and I think more of it should be encouraged gently so that we can find out quickly what the flaws and limitations are so that we can put regulatory guardrails around it so that people do not harm themselves.
While I wouldn’t condone using an AI to create an entire novel, I would be fine with a human using ChatGPT to generate topics, prompts, and check spelling & grammar.
AI is a tool. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. Much like a hammer. There are both good and bad ways to use them.
There’s no reason for there to be prohibition of AI generation; just prohibition of AI Generation being the only source of text.
It feels like this vulnerability isn’t notable for the majority of users who don’t typically include “Being compromised by a Nation-State-Level Actor.”
That being said; I do hope they get it fixed; and it looks like there’s already mitigations in place like protecting the authentication by another factor such as a PIN. That helps; for people who do have the rare threat model issue in play.
The complexity of the attack also seems clearly difficult to achieve in any time frame; and would require likely hundreds of man-hours of work to pull off.
If we assume they’re funded enough to park a van of specialty equipment close enough to you; steal your key and clone it; then return it before you notice…nothing you can do can defend against them.
(As if spoken by the King to Simba:)
Rust: Everything from the bottom of this cliff to the acacia tree there is ours. Make sure you ask permission before you take something, take nothing you are not permitted to take. We don’t go beyond that tree; and if you even think about the elephant graveyard beyond it; I’ll kill you myself.
C: Everything the sun touches is yours. I caution you to not venture into the shadows; but I will not stop you, for you are a king, and nothing a king can do is unnecessary if it is for his people.
I think there’s a problem with the ‘C only’ devs refusing to be accomodating to the Rust developers. Instead of being stubborn; why not provide them what is needed and help the Rust team learn how to maintain what is needed themselves?
None of the reasons I’ve seen mentioned are legitimate reasons for refusing to at least help them a few times, and helping them to learn how to do the onerous task themselves so they can keep it off the main plate for too long.
C devs do not need to learn Rust to provide critical information; they need only be present and cooperative with Rust devs to help them find, convert, and localize data structures for Rust use. They can stand to sit and pair code with their Rust Dev counterparts long enough to teach a Rust Dev counterpart how and what they need to look for in C code. It’s not that big of an ask, and it’s not something that really is a large ask. Provide the bindings for a short period of time, and work on training a team of Rust Devs to maintain the bindings.
That way both sides are stepping up to meet the others and the data isn’t being sat on by the C-only Devs.
I’m certainly concerned that now that this software has been covered in PopSci; that it will certainly suffer a needless onslaught of DMCA and other lawsuit-related shenanigans. >_>
No; Piracy won’t stop.
Analog loopholes still exist; and cannot be eliminated completely from the chain. Enterprising crackers will tinker and find weaknesses in systems. People will find bypasses, workarounds, and straight up just crack whole encryption schemes that were badly implemented.
Encryption was never intended to protect content. It was intended to protect people. In the short term; sure, DRM and encryption can protect profits. In the long term, it provably cannot and does not. Oftentimes it gets cracked or goes offline; and the costs associated with keeping authentication servers up for long enough to keep lawsuits off your back is provably large and difficult to scale. I would even assert that it costs more to run DRM than it saves anyone in ‘missed profits’.
Frequently companies also argue that it saves profits by recapturing “lost sales”; but that’s provably false. A consumer, deprived of any other viable choice, will in fact, just not buy the thing if they cannot buy it for what they deem as a fair price. It has also been proven; that if they can acquire the content freely; they will oftentimes become far more willing to buy whatever they acquired or even buy future titles. When a customer trusts; they may decide to purchase. But why should a customer trust a company that does not trust them?
While there is no harm; I could easily understand why parents might not want this measure passed. Frequently the costs get passed onto them in a painful way; either at the lunchline every day or indirectly via the taxes they pay and how much the school spends.
I think it could be easier if instead of passing the law for everyone statewide; they just let schools and districts “opt into” this sort of thing by polling parents; and “voluntarily join the study of this subject” rather than being forced into it by state legislature statewide. Then the State can control and gather data in their own ways…and maintains their own control group; which makes a better study. They can’t control the quality of the control group when using data borrowed from other states…what they get is what they get.
Such a system might be constructed for one’s own scraping needs by taking any one of the current frontend/backends and customizing that behavior such that it could mitigate issues or ingest/ignore data based on your own inputs as well; such that your model could be “riding along on a human surfboard with human guidance”