Lol in the article it says ppls proposed shotlrting Reddit stock. I love some of those apes so much, they got great ideas.

Literally illegal. Discussing crimes doesn’t equal crime, so there’s no reason for them to requeust IPs. And at least in the EU you aren’t even allowed to disclose information related to your person.

They might get in trouble with EU laws if they do it here as well…

That’s not how this works. They are running internationally, and GDPR would hit them like a brick if they did that.

I would assume they had some deals with law enforcement to transmit data one narrow circumstances.

I’m honestly asking what the impact to the users is from this breach.

Well if you signed up there and did an ancestry inquiry, those hackers can now without a doubt link you to your ancestry. They might be able to doxx famous people and in the wrong hands this could lead to stalking, and even more dangerous situations. Basically everyone who is signed up there has lost their privacy and has their sensitive data at the mercy of a criminal.

This is different. This is a breach and if you have a company taking care of such sensitive data, it’s your job to do the best you can to protect it. If they really do blame this on the users, they are in for a class action and hefty fine from the EU, especially now that they’ve established even more guidelines towards companies regarding the maintenance of sensitive data. This will hurt on some regard.

Cause those apps suck unfortunately.

Maybe make it more interesting “give this man a medal” and you pay money for that, but the money gets donated to the instance. That could be cool.

Ah that actually makes a lot of sense.

You don’t pay for the porn, you pay for the interaction, seeing a different side of a public person or for the feeling of knowing a secret.

Btw just to make sure, I am not being ironic here I actually never thought of it that way.

The best answer will require a very technical understanding, but I’ll give it a try and stay abstract.

The AI is trained using images. If you type in things like “a tree” it has a vague idea of what it looks like.

The thing is writing letters is a hard concept. How should the AI know text is made up of letters? Connected lines make a letter and unconnected ones don’t. Sentences are connected using dots.

Easy enough for us, you have to imagine an AI is best with what it can directly observe. But knowing when to literally write out letters is hard. So it has a stroke. It has a vague notion of “this is where text is supposed to go” but making the letters look right in an adjusted font, remembering where letters end and how words are spaced; all of this is far too complex.

Now I haven’t looked into it for AIs who CAN generate text more well, but I assume the only they do this is by deciding “there’s gonna be text” and then using another process to insert the text basically after the fact. Or maybe there’s some special process change in the training or inference of the image going on? Idk, for this one I need an expert.

Thanks dad

“why didn’t he make a run for it” if you realise you will be tried, it is too late. If you try to flee somewhere without a good reason, they will hold you and arrest you.

He’s not a genius, but he’s also not a total idiot. He knows.

And then there’s also a difference between being intelligent and being smart. If you are intelligent, you might know how to cheat in a videogame. But if you are smart, you know that this a bad idea because of a plethora of reasons.

I never knew you can just omit such key words.

“it had movement” :P

I would usually try to add things to the prompt you’d expect to find in a more casual scenario, like “smartphone” with half weight or something, or “video”, or maybe like “Facebook”. Just meta information you think attaches to more casual photos. Maybe even add “photo”.

If ppl like it enough to pirate it, ppl will also like it enough to buy it. That’s the rule of thumb imo.

Btw there is a good argument with net neutrality that the ISP doesn’t even have a right to know what services you are streaming. Because that shit can be sold to data brokers. Ofc this kind of argument is always better suited for the EU, but Considering freedom is a big thing for America, I assume the freedom to govern over your own data should be a right regardless.

This makes perfect sense. It’s been trained to answer questions to you satisfaction, not truthfully. It was made to prioritize your satisfaction over truth, so it will lie if necessary.

Only a connoisseur would prepare them “well done”

IANAL

Usually judges don’t issue such extreme orders only because of the fact that they don’t want to be hammered on appeal.

Now this one is different. I have 2 theories: either the judge thinks the mandatory negative inference is not needed because there’s a good chance the jury will do that anyway, or the judge is gonna advise the government to make this a separate case.

It honestly doesn’t sound to me like he’s just saying one thing and doing the other. He sounds rightly agitated and usually agitated judges will give you a low blow sooner or later if you fuck around.

“NASA already exists” if his team is doing something never done before and very helpful, that is evidence for the necessity of other space companies besides NASA.

Edit: just so we’re clear, I don’t give two shits about Elaine Mosk.