Skip to content

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi

Technology
31 26 0
  • How LLMs could be insider threats

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    105 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    patatahooligan@lemmy.worldP
    Of course they're not "three laws safe". They're black boxes that spit out text. We don't have enough understanding and control over how they work to force them to comply with the three laws of robotics, and the LLMs themselves do not have the reasoning capability or the consistency to enforce them even if we prompt them to.
  • 144 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    B
    I know there decent alternatives to SalesForce, but I’m not sure what you’d replace Slack with. Teams is far worse in every conceivable way and I’m not sure if there’s anything else out there that isn’t already speeding down the enshittification highway.
  • Have LLMs Finally Mastered Geolocation? - bellingcat

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    50 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    R
    Depends on who programed the AI - and no, it is not Kyoto
  • 40 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    T
    Clearly the author doesn't understand how capitalism works. If Apple can pick you up by the neck, turn you upside down, and shake whatever extra money it can from you then it absolutely will do so. The problem is that one indie developer doesn't have any power over Apple... so they can go fuck themselves. The developer is granted the opportunity to grovel at the feet of their betters (richers) and pray that they are allowed to keep enough of their own crop to survive the winter. If they don't survive... then some other dev will probably jump at the chance to take part in the "free market" and demonstrate their worth.
  • 74 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    C
    Time to start chopping down flock cameras.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    34 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.
  • 48 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    evkob@lemmy.caE
    Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported
  • Building a personal archive of the web, the slow way

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    24 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    K
    Or just use Linkwarden or Karakeep (previously Hoarder)