Jerrrrrrry

Lolol. It's a chess thread, say it.

We are pawns, hoping to be maybe a Rook to the King by endgame.

Some think we can promote our pawns to Queens to match.

Luckily, the Jester muses!

Maximum compression should push ALL the 'work' to the compression alg, leaving essentially (no correlative bits) 'random' data to be decompressed.

Good compression, by definition, would leave small artifacts in the data, biasing it away from "true" randomness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...

  >This almost worked, but I found that the first chunk was always failing to transmit through the firewall

Magic numbers/header scanning or, if it was awhile back, BOM (byte order mark) messing stuff up.

This color is beautiful, the deleted comment was likely nasty, and Stallman was right.

Nuance;

not 'good' but maximum compression, yes.

    > The audience here skews towards those the truth.

  The truth is that this sentence is believed by every audience ever convened.

Actually you are correct, I should had known better to type "truth", as if a thing existed.

This site definitely skews towards objectivity.

et tú, too?

  >I quit since.

apparently they have too :)

However, this format doesn't immediately squash critical opinions (besides ␟ stuff), which eventually allows critical discourse to actually occur.

Other side promote engagement. This site still rewards discourse.

Remember, the Gentleman's agreement of "no politics" was left unsaid until one party broke it, which divided america.

The audience here skews towards those the truth.

Of course, the ones that cannot tolerate any dissenting opinion will either whine or leave.

Remember, secure encryption, good compression, and truely random data are indistinguishable.

It's best to paste that encrypted payload into a JPG with some bullshit magic headers and upload that to a trusted Exfil pivot instead.

Or, to get SuperMarioKart.rom to work with your chromeApp-XEMU emulator to play during down-time at work, just rename it to SMB.png, and email it you yourself.

encode it with enough filler as to reduce its "entropy" :)

  >'thinking' vs 'just recombinating things

If there is a difference, and LLM's can do one but not the other...

  >By that standard (and it is a good standard), none of these "AI" things are doing any thinking

  >"Does it generalize past the training data" has been a pre-registered goalpost since before the attention transformer architecture came on the scene.

Then what the fuck are they doing.

Learning is thinking, reasoning, what have you.

Move goalposts, re-define words, it won't matter.

an LLM would complain that their internal model does not refelct their current input/output.

Since LLM's knows people knock off/test/run afoul/mistakes can be made, it would then raise that as a possibility and likely inquire.

musical goalposts, gotta love it.

These LLM's just exhibited agency.

Swallow your pride.

ga!

  >second order chilling effects

in the context of preventing leaks: if/when this nears ubiquity, the first ID'ing of leaks will obviously lead to the second effect of deterring further leaks.

  >their ability to outsmart Google

it knows all the words: that is why i should not had had to had reminded it incessantly.

  >continuing to obscure the entropic state of the x-M medium and remain plausibly deniable

lemme draw this out cuz you seem intimidated with simple abstractions.

imagine a three page power-point composed of Header, Text, companyLogo, no other data, aside from inclination from the plane.

under the plausibility presumption the header and text and company logo cannot be within ~15 interval degrees from the plane, you only have a state-space of so many combinations, which puts a hard limit (Shannon's) on the medium's maximum signal/noise ratio.

assuming people cannot collude to delineate between copies, they arent going to be able to perceive subtle shifts in the inclination/position/font/inclusion/exclusion of elements.

however more generally, this key-space needed for the LEAKER_ID wont be much larger (in magnitude) than the user pool of potential leakers, with a simple CRC for resiliency.

Also, his remarks during the Jan6th meandering are indiscernable from MLK's or others, but had the "violent" (no broken statues, no fires, no fatalities...?) "insurrection" been any less "welcomed", then his plagiarism would had likely been spotlighted instead.

if googles' "Add to Dictionary" button worked more than their new 100+ languages i wouldn't felt gaslit by the same words having needed re-googled weekly

trivial grammar/spelling mistakes are worse than running analogies into the ground without hitting the "context" button, or even the reductio ad absurdium train HN has been on lately.

yes my latin half-Freudian trans-alliterations can be tempting to pick out, i had another tab with stylometry obfuscation described, incident, and mitigated.

also giigles spellcheck sucks ass, and im tired of being gaslit of my word choice/spelling by giigles, who should know every word by now, in all languages

  >don't possess deeper level knowledge

umm besides error-correcting codes reducing the bitrate, compression, and random byte padding to fend off correlation/timing attacks, there is no where to hide data, outside of the shannon limit for information thru a medium.

but its easy to hide data you cannot perceive; and everyone being conscious of this feat/fingerprinting, even if barely, does more towards efficacy to deter leaking via second-order "chilling effect" than the aftermath; I.P theft is hard to un-approximate

also stenography, ironically still being the only "real" signature, is still security thru obscurity with more steps; your literal stenographic signature is unique, but not preventable from duplicity, so it is un-obscurable.

also i know rsa != ECC plz dont

the point here is to dissipate it across enough mediums as to be indiscernible from noisy background fluctuations regardless of existence, giving general-deniability to all mediums eventually, thru signal to noise ratio.

all security is just obscurity, eventually, where you are obscuring your private key's semi-prime's factors.

[x] is just [y] with more steps

Stenography is just security by more obscurity.

Specifically, shuffling compression, bit-rate, encryption, and barely human-perceivable signal around mediums (x-M) to obscure the entrophic/random state of any medium as to not break the generally-available plausible-deniability from a human-perception.

Can't break Shannon's law, but hides who intent of who is behind the knocks on the all doors. Obscures which house Shannon lives in, and whom who knocks wishes to communicate.

X to doubt, full of self-important wieners with pitiful imaginations, that are jealous my "red" is "redder" than their "red":

I cant actually picture red; but its a lack of articulateness and a vocal minority rarely-intersecting that drown out my lack of understanding or doubt.

indiscernible from crying, they "cannot also picture red, by a way less than you can empathize with"

nobody actually sees what they think. the wall is blank.

those drifters are usually debris or thiccer blood cell components

  >should be considered, and are

Not as much as they should be, was his point. Saying something is not proper is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Seems too, doesn't it.

Sucks that your results may vary

better to let them die in vain and lose irreplicable, un-re-execable data?

triple false-flags to sow/reap FUD

Both can be true! This is essentially making it easier to do [x] argument, which itself is essentially security through obscurity.

It was always possible to do watermark everything: any nearly-imperceptible bit can be used to encode data that can be used overtly.

Now enabling everyone everywhere to do it and integrate it may have second-order effects that were opposite of one's intention.

It is very convenient thing, for no one to trust what they can see. Unless it was Validated (D) by the Gubmint (R), it is inscrutable and unfalsifiable.