Skip to content

Brave browser blocks Windows feature that takes screenshots of everything you do on your PC

Technology
351 170 357
  • 46 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    291 Aufrufe
    S
    They could have identified me, that's the point. We couldn't identify the criminals because that example was before facial recognition. You read the article but you still don't get it.
  • You can still enable uBlock Origin in Chrome, here is how

    Technology technology
    130
    1
    312 Stimmen
    130 Beiträge
    877 Aufrufe
    W
    I use IronFox all the time. For me almost nothing is broken. Once a year I find one low value site that I have to load in Cromite to see what it is, and then I never use that trash site again. In other words, IronFox fulfills 100% of all my browsing needs excellently. I used Mull before IronFox, and my experience there was excellent as well. There is no good reason to use Chrome today or even some years back when Mull was the thing.
  • 738 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    388 Aufrufe
    K
    That has always been the two big problems with AI. Biases in the training, intentional or not, will always bias the output. And AI is incapable of saying "I do not have suffient training on this subject or reliable sources for it to give you a confident answer". It will always give you its best guess, even if it is completely hallucinating much of the data. The only way to identify the hallucinations if it isn't just saying absurd stuff on the face of it, it to do independent research to verify it, at which point you may as well have just researched it yourself in the first place. AI is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool with the right training and use cases. For example, I use it at a software engineer to help me parse error codes when googling working or to give me code examples for modules I've never used. There is no small number of times it has been completely wrong, but in my particular use case, that is pretty easy to confirm very quickly. The code either works as expected or it doesn't, and code is always tested before releasing it anyway. In research, it is great at helping you find a relevant source for your research across the internet or in a specific database. It is usually very good at summarizing a source for you to get a quick idea about it before diving into dozens of pages. It CAN be good at helping you write your own papers in a LIMITED capacity, such as cleaning up your writing in your writing to make it clearer, correctly formatting your bibliography (with actual sources you provide or at least verify), etc. But you have to remember that it doesn't "know" anything at all. It isn't sentient, intelligent, thoughtful, or any other personification placed on AI. None of the information it gives you is trustworthy without verification. It can and will fabricate entire studies that do not exist even while attributed to real researcher. It can mix in unreliable information with reliable information becuase there is no difference to it. Put simply, it is not a reliable source of information... ever. Make sure you understand that.
  • Dubai to debut restaurant operated by an AI chef

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 53 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    90 Aufrufe
    Z
    What is the technology angle here? What does this have to do with technology?
  • 53 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    B
    There is nothing open about openai, and that was obvious way before they released chatgpt.
  • 25 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    S
    I didn't care much about arc because it was chromium, but damn this is just bland and uninteresting compared to it
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    420 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.