Skip to content

Google, Microsoft say Chinese hackers are exploiting SharePoint zero-day

Technology
28 21 85
  • 118 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    They are making the infrastructure with the same shitty AI code…
  • Apple appeals EU's €500M fine over App Store payment restraints

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    zak@lemmy.worldZ
    It's likely their priority is continuing to collect all the fees they can for as long as they can rather than the fine itself.
  • EU says it will continue rolling out AI legislation on schedule

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    92 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    A
    I just can't get over how little we hear from academics RE: AI. It shows a clear disinterest and I feel like if they did bother to say anything it would be, "Proceed with caution while we study this further." Instead it's always the giant corporations with vested interest in this technology succeeding. It's just so painfully transparent.
  • Misogyny and Violent Extremism: Can Big Tech Fix the Glitch?

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    20 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    G
    It is interesting that you are not answering my point... Good work
  • 311 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    207 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • 81 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    merde@sh.itjust.worksM
    (common people, this is the fediverse) [image: 922f7388-85b1-463d-9cdd-286adbb6a27b.jpeg]
  • Welcome to the web we lost

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    181 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    118 Aufrufe
    C
    Is it though? Its always far easier to be loud and obnoxious than do something constructive, even with the internet and LLMs, in fact those things are amplifiers which if anything make the attention imbalance even more drastic and unrepresentative of actual human behaviour. In the time it takes me to write this comment some troll can write a dozen hateful ones, or a bot can write a thousand. Doesn't mean humans are shitty in a 1000/1 ratio, just means shitty people can now be a thousand times louder.
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.