chme

Arguments like these just make it so much harder for tolerant people to actually act against attackers of their system, to such a degree that they struggle to defend it. These arguments are about spreading doubt - in that way they are like propaganda, because only tolerant people will think about trying to keep this balanced out.

I am fine with censoring opinions of the intolerant right wing. IMO antidemocratic opinions shouldn't be given a platform. Tolerant people shouldn't tolerate the intolerant.

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

If private data got leaked, like revenge porn, it is a breach and that private data that belongs to an individual is still private, and still needs to be protected. This is what GDPR and other legislation is about. If secrecy and privacy is the same, someone that isn't able to protect their data sufficiently will not have any privacy, thus any leaking of data is now the fault of the person that got their data leaked, not of the person that broke the trust and leaked it.

Your conclusion seems rather extreme to me. So of course data that got leaked, and is no longer secret is still private, because 'private' means who should be in control of that data, not about if the person has control or not.

I also don't follow your point about waffles and pancakes, because this is a pretty big disagreement we have here. To me this dialog is more like you are saying "I don't like laws", and I say "While I agree that some laws are stupid, other laws are pretty useful, for instance people shouldn't be allowed rob other houses, even if they are able to do that or even where invited." And then, instead of agreeing, you sort of say, "No, I really mean that. If someone isn't able to defend their home properly or give out invitations to someone, it is okay to steal from them."

To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet, because the public has no right to know them, they are private data of an individual. They might no longer be secret, but they are still private.

> To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added.

The privacy of individuals is important, regardless where they store their private data. Their account information -- what they buy, their medical information and so on is stored on servers and could be hacked.

Happens with the Linux kernel as well.

Well... I would think that the whole AI industry in the US are working towards public bailouts... Which I guess they'll get under the current administration... So they'll be fine... Nobody there really seems interested in actually creating a profitable business anyway...

    #define EPROCRASTINATE 245 /* exhausted all output tokens with reasoning */

I could not find any information on what kind of influence a online-petition on wemove.eu would have...

Still, I love Matrix and hope that these issues will be resolved in time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark#Segfault_bug

The user is free to use a LLM to 'validate' the `install.sh` file. Just asking it if the script does anything 'bad'. That should be similarly successful as the LLM generating the script based on a description. Maybe even more successful.

Wouldn't that be nice?

It is much easier to use LLMs to generate code, validate that code as a developer, fix it, if necessary, and check it into the repo, then if every user has to send prompts to LLMs in order to get the code they can actually execute.

While hoping it doesn't break their system and does what they wanted from it.

Also... that just doesn't scale. How much power would we need, if everyday computing starts with a BIOS sending prompts to LLMs in order to generate a operating system it can use.

Even if it is just about installing stuff... We have CI runners, that constantly install software often on every build. How would they scale if they need LLMs to generate install instructions every time?

Pretty brilliant in a way.

And natural languages are open to interpretation and a lot of context will remain unmentioned. While programming languages, together with their tested environment, contain the whole context.

Instrumenting LLMs will also mean, doing a lot of prompt engineering, which on one hand might make the instructions clearer (for the human reader as well), but on the other will likely not transfer as much theory behind why each decision was made. Instead, it will likely focus on copy&pasta guides, that don't require much understanding on why something is done.

Good idea. That seems sensible.

Bonus: LLM is only used once, not every time anyone wants to install some software. With some risks of having to regenerate, because the output was nonsensical.

That is why we have programming languages, they, coupled with a specific interpreter/compiler, are pretty clear on what they do. If someone misunderstands some specific code segment, they can just test their assumptions easily.

You cannot do that with just written prose, you would need to ask the writer of that prose to clarify.

And with programming languages, the context is contained, and clearly stated, otherwise it couldn't be executed. Even undefined behavior is part of that, if you use the same interpreter/compiler.

Also humans often just read something wrong, or skip important parts. That is why we have computers.

Now, I wouldn't trust a LLM to execute prose any better then I trust a random human of reading some how-to guide and doing that.

The whole idea that we now add more documentation to our source code projects, so that dumb AI can make sense of it, is interesting... Maybe generally useful for humans as well... But I would instead target humans, not LLMs. If the LLMs finds it useful as well, great. But I wouldn't try to 'optimize' my instructions so that every LLM doesn't just fall flat on its face. That seems like a futile effort.

I just hope that people will not just execute that code in an unconfined environment.

I generally agree with your points, but I wouldn't trust Apple, or any publicly traded company, to have any kind of ethics. Just because their incentive to make as much profit as possible, leads to them trying to differentiate themselves from other companies, and thus they choose to temporarily align with privacy concerns doesn't mean they will not compromise on them, if they see better profits elsewhere.

I rather have privacy enforcing regulations like the GDPR or policies that go even further, than relying on publicly traded companies to protect their users.

The "new" git default branch name is 'main' and 'autoland' existed before next to 'mozilla-central' and is the one where commits usually appear first.

https://www.techspot.com/news/107792-hacker-breaches-telemes...

See the change log here: https://www.afkmods.com/Unofficial%20Skyrim%20Special%20Edit...

Only a very small amount of the issues fixed there where integrated into the official patch releases.