No, AI is killing the PC parts industry.

No, the prompt won’t respond to non keyboard input devices. You have to click with a mouse or keyboard.

There should really be a timeout confirmation, you know, like most prompts of this sort. It’s a pretty big design flaw imo.

Yeah that’s definitely annoying… Maybe it will be a delayed release?

It probably doesn’t help that there’s so many simultaneous Rumiko shows going on lately. It feels like we went from 5mph to 100mph in terms of output of her stuff lately.

I had always heard “binary blob” said when it came to opaque code, but I see that blob is what is used to describe unexplained binary data as a whole in database lingo, so I’m willing to say your usage of it is probably more correct than mine here, assuming the binary data isn’t an actual program (afaik there’s no elf-file like characteristics but who knows.). 😇

It’s a bit strange that this code requires a binary blob to verify, I think people who want to experiment with this should take some caution as it could be an exploit-in-an-exploit (user is highlighting a real exploit, but also trying to take advantage of people testing by effectively installing a back-door.) I won’t say that’s happening for sure, but take running this yourself with extreme caution.

If you think about AI systems as effectively complex DSP problems and equations, then logically any system that takes inputs that are potentially the outputs can cause system feedback or recursive (destructive) loops. What scares AI companies is that, while most recursive loops are easy to detect immediately, “content loops” will be much harder to detect as the delay time between inputs is much larger compared to, say, audio or programming loops where feedback is obvious immediately.

This is effectively the theory behind the practice of data poising, and it’s hard to say there’s no validity to it as most AI companies are terrified of data poisoning. If it didn’t work, companies wouldn’t be so adamantly vocal about their distaste for model poisoning conceptually. Also, a lot of time and money is spent trying to “detect” AI content for a reason – that reason is actually to help aid the detection of AI output which must be “valuable” to the companies to spend the resources on it.

Conversely, AI makers have learned of ways to avoid this by simply having human semantic “grading” of the content done by third parties. This is why there are so many deals going on in Africa / SE Asia where these AI companies are hiring English speakers to effectively “wash” the input by giving it contextual “extra information” and rough validation scoring. This is an expensive solution, though, so they’re very much dependent on AI being the bees-knees of lucrative investment for this process to continue. I’d also argue, with the rate at which AI development has slowed down, the semantic grading of content being fed into the system also has diminishing returns. However, this is effectively a “survival of the fittest” style evolutionary simulation, where the AI is only interested in training off information it happens to find is “right” or “close enough” or whatever metric the grader finds. The feedback is less of a problem if the validity of the input can be assured or “cleaned up” to prevent unintended loops, basically.

Now, “are the programs that claim to poison the datasets effective?” Hmm, that’s a difficult one to answer. Personally, I have some skepticism around these models as their origins are vague and most are not adopting an “open data” approach or even an open binary approach (freeware) for distribution. I understand that the concern from the makers is that publicly talking about how the sausage is made makes the software less effective, but it’s hard to validate that the people behind these models are providing the service as intended and that they aren’t doing anything with the data being sent to them for “protection.” There’s no assurances that they aren’t training models off the data artists send in themselves, for example, or any guarantees to how that data will be used for training. So it’s kind of a “miss” for me, unless there’s a project someone is aware of that is both open-source and open-data (I find that ‘open-source’ in the AI field is a hugely misleading moniker, as AI follows a “data is king” philosophy and the program that trains the models is inherently less important as a result.)

More cases of “rules for thee and not for me”, of course. You won’t see the DOJ arresting anyone in the Trump family making the same kind of bets.

If this guy’s lawyer is smart about this, they should ask for discovery on specific instances of insider trading that we know about like the Iran bombing bets made on Kalshi or similar platforms. It would probably be a quick way to get the case dismissed or at least settled out.

This is a really good change. Sticking video editing files inside the “Videos” folder always felt nasty, so I usually changed this anyway.

It’s-a me, mario your childhood dreams!

I do think it’s bizarre we live in a society where smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol is “normal” yet weed is somehow a taboo subject.

It’s especially funny since Japanese policy on weed was basically forced on Japan (and the rest of the world) by the United States with racially motivated trade policies that conveniently helped the alcohol business thrive in a post prohibition world.

Wow I never knew that Great Ace Attorney was used for Anti-weed propaganda. That’s crazy (and probably a little bit niche?)

Could this not be implemented with clever back-links to other “shared” accounts for users who care to keep this kind of thing connected? Kind of like how Mastodon works with web ownership verification, except for fediverse account linkage.