Yeah, totally not literally disappearing people en mass to feed their souls to Gwi-ma. Just totally harmless, innocent demons.

Interns aren’t that intelligent, either. But they can generate content even if they’re not intelligent and that’s helpful, too.

An intern has the capacity to learn, an LLM does not.

Having the right answer is a lot less useful than looking like you have the right answer, sadly.

Only if you care about accuracy, which is 100% the problem with LLMs.

It’s got intern-level intelligence

The problem is, it’s not “intelligence”. It’s an enormous statistical based autocorrect.

AI doesn’t understand math, it just knows that the next character in a string starting “2+2=” is almost unanimously “4” in all the data it’s statistically analyzed. If you try to have it solve an equation that isn’t commonly repeated, it can’t solve it. Even when you try to train it on textbooks, it doesn’t ‘learn’ the math, it tries to analyze the word patterns in the text of the book and attempts to replicate it. That’s why it ‘hallucinates’, and also why it doesn’t matter how much data you feed it, it won’t be ‘intelligent’.

It seems intelligent because we associate intelligence with language, and LLMs mimic language in an amazing way. But it’s not ‘thinking’ the way we associate with intelligence. It’s running complex math about what word should come next in a sentence based on the other sentences of that sort it’s seen before.

No company has to tell me that they are inclusive. I just assume that they hire the best person who applied for any given job. If that person was LGBT, I fully expect them to have given that person the job. If you have to tell me that you are, that means you werent.

Welcome to being gay in society just a short few years ago. We live in a world where Alan Turing was arrested, charged, and convicted of being homosexual and chemically castrated as a result. It didn’t matter that he helped the Allies win WW2 and he wasn’t hurting anyone, it was a crime to be gay. When AIDS was first ravaging the homosexual community, there was talk of just letting it run rampant as it was just killing ‘the gays’ not anyone important.

I’m happy that we’ve made progress as a society that this isn’t as well known anymore, but that doesn’t change that it did happen.

I dunno, these don’t feel the same to me.

Having LGBTQ representation is a way of trying to attract customers: “Get a Mastercard because we’re LGBTQ friendly” is different than your boss saying “Jim, I know you have a wife and kids to support, and that you’re a valuable member on this team; but we’ve decided it’s more cost effective to have this LLM code our app and have two junior developers clean up the code, so you’re being laid off.”

The quote I’ve seen and agree with is something along the lines of “The AI push exists to try and give the owners of ‘Capital’ access to ‘Talent’ without giving the talented working class people access to ‘Capital’.” It exists solely to try and make paying workers redundant.

Having a gay character in a show isn’t anything like that at all IMO, unless your the type of person who thinks homosexuality is contagious and/or that you’re scared you might realize you’re gay if you watch two men being romantic with each other.

It took me getting arrested over some bullshit to get me out, then it was just time and therapy.

I can’t recommend a good therapist enough. Mine has helped me untangle lots of things, and I’m still getting better 5 years after the split.

Fire up Wireshark on a different machine and transfer a file between two other machines, you won’t see anything.

This is true, but only because we’ve replaced Ethernet hubs with switches.

An Ethernet hub was a dumber, cheaper device that imitated a switch, but with a fundamental difference: all connected devices were in the same collision domain.

I don’t know too much about WiFi but it probably does the same, it’s just a bridge to the same network.

Wireless communication has the same problem as Ethernet hubs, with no real solution like a switch though. Any wireless transmission involves an antenna, and transmitting is similar to standing in your yard with a bull horn to talk to your buddy two houses down. Anyone with an antenna can receive the wireless signal you send out. Period.

So some really smart people found ways to keep the stuff you send private, but anyone can sit nearby and capture data going through the air, it’s just not anything you can use because of the encryption.

That’s not a problem at all, so long as the first boot device is the Linux drive.

GRUB has no issue chain-loading the windows bootloader. You can even set GRUB to default to Windows if you want, it’ll just show the menu for a while (whatever you set the timeout to be, I find 3 seconds to be plenty) and if nothing is selected, it will hand off to Windows.

If you want to boot Linux, just hit the down arrow key when you see the menu to stop the countdown and choose what you want to boot, then hit enter.

I feel like this is missing a big point of the article.

The vulnerability that the xz backdoor attempt revealed was the developers. The elephant in the room is that for someone capable of writing and maintaining a program so important to modern technical infrastructure, we’re making sure to hang them out to dry. When they burn out because their ‘hobby’ becomes too emotionally draining (either because of a campaign to wear them down intentionally or fully naturally) someone will be waiting to take control. Who can you trust? Here, we see someone attempted (and nearly succeeded) a multi-year effort to establish themselves as a trusted member of the development community who was faking it all along. With the advent of LLMs, it’s going to be even harder to tell if someone is trustworthy, or just a long-running LLM deception campaign.

Maybe, we should treat the people we rely on for these tools a little better for how much they contribute to modern tech infrastructure?

And I’ll point out that’s less aimed at the individuals who use tech, and more at the multi-billion-dollar multi-national tech companies that make money hand over fist using the work others donate.

Sure, but who knows what shenanigans the techs and pilot were trying to convince the machine to drop the landing gear.

Under normal operations, I’d agree, but I’ll bet they were putting something in a maintenance state while it was in the air, and at that point all bets are off.

Firewall redirect and masquerade.

Bitch you thought

“You mean if I delete data, then it’s gone? No matter what platform?”

Wherever checkouts are asking for a phone number for rewards, I use (local area code) 867-5309. Works at all the gas stations, and it’s luck of the draw who gets the fuel discounts because other people use it too.

So we all charge the discounts up, and one lucky asshole gets to benefit.

This is the fundamental problem with LLMs and all the hype.

People with technology experience can understand the limitations of the tech, and will be more skeptical of the output from them.

But your average person?

If they go to Google and ask if vaccines cause autism, and the Google’s AI search slop trough contains an answer they like, accurate or not there will be exactly no second guessing. I mean, this is supposed to be a PhD level person, and it was right about the other softball questions they asked, like what color is the sky. Surely they’re right about that too, right?

It’s easy to post on a forum and say so.

Maybe you even are actually asking AI questions and researching whether or not it’s accurate.

Perhaps you really are the world’s most perfect person.

But even if that’s true, which I very seriously doubt, then you’re going to be the extreme minority. People will ask AI a question, and if they like the answers given, they’ll look no further. If they don’t like the answers given, they’ll ask the AI with different wording until they get the answer they want.

It’s a single data data point, nothing more, nothing less. But that single data point is evidence of using LLMs in their code generation.

Time will tell if this is a molehill or a mountain. When it comes to data privacy, given that it just takes one mistake and my data can be compromised, I’m going to be picky about who I park my data with.

I’m not necessarily immediately looking to jump ship, but I consider it a red flag that they’re using developer tools centered around using AI to generate code.

There it is. The bold-faced lie.

“I don’t blindly trust AI, I just ask it to summarize something, read the output, then read the source article too. Just to be sure the AI summarized it properly.”

Nobody is doing double the work. If you ask AI a question, it only gets a vibe check at best.

If you want to trade accuracy for speed, that’s your prerogative.

AI has its uses. Transcribing subtitles, searching images by description, things like that. But too many times, I’ve seen AI summaries that, if you read the article the AI cited, it can be flatly wrong on things.

What’s the point of a summary that doesn’t actually summarize the facts accurately?

Sure, but with all the mistakes I see LLMs making in places where professionals should be quality checking their work (lawyers, judges, internal company email summaries, etc) it gives me pause considering this is a privacy and security focused company.

It’s one thing for AI to hallucinate cases, and another entirely to forget there’s a difference between = and == when the AI bulk generates code. One slip up and my security and privacy could be compromised.

You’re welcome to buy in to the AI hype. I remember the dot com bubble.

There’s been evidence in their github repo that they’re using LLMs to code their tools now.

It’s making me reconsider using them.