Alt. Profile @Th4tGuyII
Honestly. I’d be fine with a touchscreen for things you wouldn’t likely be adjusting on the go anyways - but basic stuff like the radio and AC/Fans should always be easy to distinguish, don’t need to look away from the road to operate buttons. Making basic stuff require touchscreen is inconvenient at best and outright dangerous at worst.
Microsoft got the grift of a century. Make Win11 so bad that people will literally pay you NOT to force them onto it! /s
Seriously though, fuck Microsoft - $30 per year to roll out the occasional security update is obscene! They can go stuff themselves with their $3 trillion market cap
There’s a really good article on Rentry.co for setting up Win10 LTSC. Though as you say, here’s not the place for that.
Of all the things to target, did they really have to go for the IA - the organisation that literally got into trouble with the man for helping children get access to books during the pandemic.
Does this hacker kick puppies and steal sweets from babies too?
Exactly this. It’s a completely arbitrary rug-pull made especially repugnant by the fact you can circumvent it quite easily with basically no loss of functionality.
While modding Win11 is a perfectly legit option for home users, it’s not for businesses - as such many, many business-spec computers will be “obsolete” once security updates for Win10 end.
Best you can hope for is that these computers pour into liquidation markets giving people the chance to buy decent quality PCs for cheap - but more likely they’ll become e-waste
Xitter might as well call it the “Maybes and Conditions” with how much they cherrypick their T&Cs nowadays
What?? But the FBI called dibs on that backdoor! /s
It’s almost like putting backdoors into software as a whole is a bad idea cause anyone who knows of it can use it, not just “tHe GoOd GuYs”
So the profit cap has been removed and the non-profit has been kicked out of the control seat. Sounds like they’re taking off all the safeties in the name of money.
Goes to show the money always wins, and if AGI comes true, humanity will pay forfeit.
My first instinct is to say “No shit Sherlock”, of course people who get paid more for their projects can afford to contribute more time to them…
but I do understand that having empirical documented evidence of something, even of it should be common sense, is really important, cause common sense isn’t as common as people think it is (especially when a lot of people in power seem to quite intentionally lack it)
Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it…
But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it’s bow.
Governments don’t seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the time the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be long done already.
Yeah. If you’re on a public forum accessible to anyone, which the whole fediverse is, then you should never assume privacy.
Honestly transparency in this regard would be better - they’re already visible to much of the community, so they might as well be visible to everyone.
To be fair, there’s a point to be made that someone who’s overly trigger-happy on dislike should be shamed for it. Just like you would be if you kept being snide to everyone in real life.
I agree that transparency would do much more good than harm, plus compared to the info that people already put in their profiles/comments, it’s not likely to make them anymore identifiable.
Votes should absolutely be public. They were on KBin, and it made people more civil for it because you could be shamed if you were dislike trolling or liking all of your own posts/comments to make them look better (which is something you actively have to do on here, unlike Reddit).
Given this place is pseudo-anonymous anyways, and people comment far more personal and identifiable info here anyways (which tbf you should be careful about), I think public votes would do much more good than harm.
So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn’t either.
I didn’t mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that, built upon it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.
It’s like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for an illegal act - you wouldn’t go after the person who made the unmodified version.
SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.
Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.
Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. […] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.
In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that…
But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?
One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can’t be done then demanding they not be held liable.
Win11 becomes a less and less appealing switch day by day… When I can no longer hold into Win10, I think I’ll just have to jump ship to Linux.
Win10 is already quite privacy poor, but Win11 is straight up intolerable.
Pretty sure later updates for Windows 10 started doing this too, or at least it did on my PC.
Had to completely uninstall OneDrive to get it to stop - which Microsoft sure do make quite difficult to do.
The TL;DR for the article is that the headline isn’t exactly true. At this moment in time their PPU can potentially double a CPU’s performance - the 100x claim comes with the caveat of “further software optimisation”.
Tbh, I’m sceptical of the caveat. It feels like me telling someone I can only draw a stickman right now, but I could paint the Mona Lisa with some training.
Of course that could happen, but it’s not very likely to - so I’ll believe it when I see it.
Having said that they’re not wrong about CPU bottlenecks and the slowed rate of CPU performance improvements - so a doubling of performance would be huge in this current market.
So essentially weapons manufacturers are now, instead of supplying directly to Russia, allowing their weapons to be sold to vendors with ties to Russian military vendors (who definitely wouldn’t ever supply Russia) and turning a blind eye to it so they can claim to be following sanctions.
What filthy traitors. Should send them to the front line just so they can see what the weapons they’re allowing Russia to obtain are being used for.
Considering how historically ineffective age bans have been online, I’m surprised that countries keep trying for this. Telling kids, esoecually teenagers, that they’re not allowed to use social media will only make them want to use it more, and thus bypass any restrictions, defeating the purpose of the ban.
It’s like CoD being 18+ yet somehow still full of prepubescent squeakers who all apparently fucked your mother last night and have Dads who work for Xbox.
Forcing social media companies to put in place appropriate safeguards for kids who do end up on social media like this “digital duty of care” is probably more effective in the long run than playing an endless cat and mouse race.