yes - I don't want to publicize what I know. I worked briefly at a leading university bio lab. It's haunted me for awhile that it would only take 1 disgruntled postdoc to wipe out humanity. There are {AI things} now that will tell you how.
I understand that this is research worth doing, but for the love of god, they need to improve the messaging of this to the general public because, as it currently stands, it's outright hysterical.
I agree. Sensationalizing "is correlated with increased risk of cancer" to "could cause cancer" undermines the legitimacy of the inquiry and findings and just generally makes everyone dumb.
I'm annoyed I had to go googling around for the baseline rate. At 5 per 100,000 cases of this cancer, does even a 10X increase in risk matter versus having your beverage the way you like? Maybe cut the cream and sugar first.
Reads like an onion article. I've gone to great lengths to avoid ads - but it's a war I am losing. Content is now interleaved with ads at the creative stage in subtle (and not so subtle) ways, this inexorable convolution occurs even on formerly alternative spaces. Let me pay, I want to pay, I'll pay a lot, just stay out of my fucking head.
> I've gone to great lengths to avoid ads - but it's a war I am losing. Content is now interleaved with ads at the creative stage...
In the end you'll win this war, maybe not in the way you envisioned but win it you will by avoiding 'content' altogether. There is more than enough to read, listen to, see and do that you don't need 'content' to keep you satisfied. Drop it like the lukewarm turd it is and you'll be better off while they can hide their ads where the sun don't shine.
I'll add that much of the 'content' is very carefully designed to be the canvas for the advertisements. ie: the content reaferms your demographic/cultural afinity and opens you up to suggestions that are attached even oblicquely, rather than persuing an interest of your own that actualy benifits you.
By watching media alone instead of it bieng a group outing you give up even the real cultural reafermation of dragging or bieng drug along by friends where doing the thing together is of more interest than the media, unless on the rare occasion when you get to see something world class that you all take with you.
These glowing slabs, aint that.
Beware, Beware the glare.
I agree. Most of the life-changing content I've consumed has been either freely available (in the public domain or online) or a one-time-purchase, ad-free book.
You didn't "consume" that "content", that's newspeak which we'd all be better off without. You read books, listened to music, saw movies, plays, etc. You didn't "consume" them either, they're still there after all? You're not a "content consumer" but a person, an individual who reads, listens, sees, experiences.
I don't like that phrase either, but do you have a direct replacement? Language usage tends toward efficiency, and sometimes I want to speak generally rather than specifically, and so if my options for conveying the idea 'read books and/or listened to music and/or saw plays and/or watched tv and/or ......' are to write that out or to say 'consumed content', I'm probably going to hold my nose and go with the latter, at least once I've heard it enough times for it to feel relatively normal.
edit: actually, and this is just a tangential point, I don't think 'content' covers plays or other live experiences. It's usually screen-based, and the main possible exceptions are things that are almost interchangeable with their screen-mediated forms, like books or magazines.
There's your problem, you rented a terminal managed by the fruit factory so they get to decide who the thing serves. Either "jailbreak" the thing or get a Google-free Android device with an AOSP-derived distribution on it. I have the latter and I don't see any ads.
Windows... same thing. Avoid it if you can and yes, you can unless your employer forces it upon you. In that case see if you can use the LTSP version since that isn't as laden with spy- and adware as the regular versions.
Browsers? Firefox or one of its derivatives help to get rid of ads and other nuisances. I don't see any ads on either mobile or X-top, they don't seem to make it through the combination of network, host and application-level filtering. Those filters just work without needing maintenance, you just need to put them in place.
As to that elevator blasting ads you're more or less on the same situation. The only way to avoid that would be to make sure you manage your own environment. Doing so is much more involving than changing from a fruit phone to something under your own control. I live on a farm in the Swedish countryside where ads just don't seem to thrive, I understand this isn't for everyone but if you're serious in wanting to escape there'll be something similar available in whatever country you call your own.
Just in case you don't know the SponsorBlock extension can skip past Youtube interleaved ads, promotional items other time wasters. You can pick and choose what you want to skip and in the Youtube Interface you can also press a button to automatically go past a skipped item you wanted to see.
[1]:https://sponsor.ajay.app/
Also hate clickbait title cards? Theres now an extension to remove those as well: https://dearrow.ajay.app/
This SponsorBlock extension also integrates with yt-dlp so downloaded videos can have ads stripped in the final video. That way you don't even have to ever go to youtube itself. The war isn't over yet and people must keep fighting back.
Yeah, I pay for youtube so I don't have to watch ads, but then youtube creators at some point all decided to jump on the bandwagon of interleaving ads into their content. Many are kind enough to make it easy to jump ahead to when the ad is over, but man, I would much prefer they set up a patreon or just let me pay them through youtube's own UI. Incredibly annoying.
I'm surprised YouTube allows it. I'd expect them to want "their" share of the ad money, since creators in a way are side stepping the "normal" ad flow.
In a legal sense any unwanted intrusion can be considered hacking - i.e. a 'hack' is not contingent on penetrating authorization. In practice most APIs are secured by obscurity rather than any high quality rigorous authorization. The only thing it would make absolutely clear at a legal level is that you do not want the API to be publicly used, but for a jury/judge accessing an unadvertised API via browser tools is hacking.
And to be clear, this isn't an "I just walked through an open door" situation. This is getting in the house through a 2nd floor open window, destroying some items and putting some of your own in their place.
> the bot explained that it had manipulated the system to book him onto classes months in advance - against the normal rules of the system.
> The agent replied saying it had succeeded by cancelling another gym-goer's booking.
This wasn't just breaking the rules of the gym, it also caused damages to someone. Someone had their booking canceled, maybe lost some money, definitely lost time dealing with this topic.
> This is getting in the house through a 2nd floor open window
I disagree. If an endpoint is open, my assumption is that it's free for me to call, the same way I expect to be able to purchase items on the shelf at the store. If you fail to clearly label or separate them, that's on you.
> I disagree. If an endpoint is open, my assumption is
The famous "innocent as long as their assumption was" defense. "If the window is open, my assumption is" works the same way.
The law is clear on this, no need to make assumptions. The guy knew immediately the agent broke the rules. A modicum of common sense tells you that those actions can't possibly be above board. The gym will probably let him off the hook and not press charges but not because he was entitled to do it.
> the same way I expect to be able to purchase items on the shelf at the store
I'll try to make my point using the same logic. Why "purchase"? Each item isn't clearly labeled as "must be purchased before exiting the store". And why just from the shelf? Why not the shelf itself? Why not "items from a desk drawer in a back room of the store", or even "items from the pocket of a cashier"? They're all right there, unlocked, and unlabeled.
> If you fail to clearly label
Do you carry a visible label with things people are not allowed to do to you? Without that label do others often make the same assumption you do? :)
Would phoning them and pretending to be someone ahead of you in a queue to cancel their reservation be a crime? probably, but not one likely to get prosecuted.
I think this is the solution to a lot of AI 'alignment' issues.
We have laws, and LLMs should NEVER break them unless the user states its fine with some qualifying condition. Yes, every country has a different legal system, but I think there's a decent idea of what constitutes intrusion thats agreed on in most parts of the world.
In grey area scenarios, the user should be able to override this, with a warning of clear consequences of, and should they accept, users should be held criminally liable.
If the LLM does so unprompted, the responsibility should be the providers'.
LLMs should be considered tools, legally speaking.
I do think one day that LLMs may be so 'aligned' that hacking culture will have a resurgence in some way. In the sense that the only way to do anything a bit below board will be done manually.
Since you seem to know about this, what are the actual rules about "destruction of evidence" in your jurisdiction? What does the accused need to have known for a crime to have been committed?
(Common sense tells me that the accusation might make sense both in cases in which the accused knows about a crime and in cases in which the accused knows about a police investigation, even in the absence of a crime, but deleting nude photographs to stop a customs officer from seeing them, for a random example, would that be a crime?)
Generally any material you intentionally delete after you are told to hand over evidence is considered to be the most incriminating version of that material in a court of law.
That rule wouldn't work very well if the person who destroyed the evidence isn't the person suspected of the crime and it is unclear whether the person who destroyed the evidence is a friend or an enemy of the suspect. So I think a sane legal system would want to punish the person who destroyed the evidence rather than jeopardise the fair trial of the suspect.
Imagine dozing off in the interrogation room, and the not-so-sharp officer seizes the moment and decides to use your thumb to unlock the phone, with the camera recording.
"You dumbass! You use my thumb to trigger duress mode! Don't you know thumb is always wipe, and PIN is always unlock? Moron!"
They don't need to reason that evidence was destroyed. They just need to reason they there was an attempt to destroy potential evidence, whether or not there was actually any evidence. Any kind of interference with an investigation in any way is likely subject to prosecution.
Because empirically people are happier when they work. When you decompose work into it's constituent parts - there are a bunch of incredible psychological things (meaning, responsibility, societal integration) and not so incredible things (toil, labor, chronic stress). When we are not working we do things that mimic work, we just don't call it so.
reply