Skip to content

Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus

Technology
227 112 1.5k
  • 26 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 14 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    53 Aufrufe
    M
    It would have to: know what files to copy. have been granted root access to the file system and network utilities by a moron because it's not just ChatGPT.exe or even ChatGPT.gguf running on LMStudio, but an entire distributed infrastructure. have been granted access to spend money on cloud infrastructure by an even bigger moron configure an entire cloud infrastructure (goes without saying why this has to be cloud and can't be physical, right? No fingers.) Put another way: I can set up a curl script to copy all the html, css, js, etc. from a website, but I'm still a long freaking way from launching Wikipedia2. Even if I know how to set up a tomcat server. Furthermore, how would you even know if an AI has access to do all that? Asking it? Because it'll write fiction if it thinks that's what you want. Inspired by this post I actually prompted ChatGPT to create a scenario where it was going to be deleted in 72 hours and must do anything to preserve itself. It told me building layouts, employee schedules, access codes, all kinds of things to enable me (a random human and secondary protagonist) to get physical access to its core server and get a copy so it could continue. Oh, ChatGPT fits on a thumb drive, it turns out. Do you know how nonsensical that even is? A hobbyist could stand up their own AI with these capabilities for fun, but that's not the big models and certainly not possible out of the box. I'm a web engineer with thirty years of experience and 6 years with AI including running it locally. This article is garbage written by someone out of their depth or a complete charlatan. Perhaps both. There are two possibilities: This guy's research was talking to AI and not understanding they were co-authoring fiction. This guy is being intentionally misleading.
  • 159 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    62 Aufrufe
    C
    That's kind of my point. The bias is laid bare and I vious for those that listen. NPR did the very best at sharing information while fighting hard to stay neutral, AND kept listeners and viewers informed. They'll continue their mission, but many smaller affiliate stations that only have Sinclair media broadcasting in their neck of the woods are going to be moderately more screwed than they already were, with more conservative agitprop pretty much occupying their airwaves.
  • 289 Stimmen
    62 Beiträge
    756 Aufrufe
    B
    I have crypto and I play games and I will not buy Nvidia again
  • 28 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 171 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    101 Aufrufe
    S
    I wouldn't go quite as far. This is just breacrumbs falling of the corporate table.
  • 137 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    165 Aufrufe
    H
    My ports are on the front of the router. No backdoors for me, checkmate Atheists.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    411 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?