No need to be threatening swatting people please

We all know who was responsible. This was a blatant attack by maga, plain and simple. There will be no real investigation from the government or police, and they want us to know that.

If you’re looking for something to do to feel less powerless, gear up to stay safe. Get cameras, fire extinguishers, defense materials, anything helps. The more of us that are prepared the safer we all are.

Ought

I don’t see why either side is trying to disown the dude. He turned himself in. That’s so brave, and the right thing to do regardless of affiliation.

Paywall = clickbait. If they want your money they can say anything just to get you to click.

I’ve listened to Ruth Porat speak before and nothing about this article matches that. It feels fake or taken wildly out of context. As a general rule she doesn’t say much that isn’t already publicly released, and this doesn’t match any of the statements google’s released recently.

For the uninitiated, she’s the kind of person who would say “you bring up a great point” before then explaining why you’re wrong. So it feels disingenuous to not include the full sentence in the quote, and then to also not link to the source video is sus.

Edit: Thanks commenter🫡 They did link the source, at least, but yeah my other points.

[[citation needed]]

I’m not necessarily autistic, but when I tell people I’m neurodivergent, they’re like “yup” 😓

Related PSA: grok is the top rated AI app in the play store, and we can fix that

I’m getting tired of this back and forth. This bickering is childish and our time would be better spent drumming up positive interest for ranked choice voting.

How many people? What percentage of users?

tl;dw: AMAB and AFAB can be useful in certain contexts, but it’s:

1. Brought up too often in contexts it doesn’t matter. ASAB should be offered up consensually by the person, never volunteered on their behalf.

2. Often used as shorthand for other things that would be better to talk about directly. For example, a GP needs to know if they have a prostate, a support group wants people that experienced misogyny as a child, a partner asking if they bottom, etc.

Ew, this article is an ad for another company. I feel icky when people try to monetize my basic human rights.

Here’s a not for profit article alternative: https://oit.utk.edu/security/learning-library/article-archive/privacy-onboard-ai-google-gemini/

In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Communist Control Act into law. In theory, this outlawed the Communist Party of the United States and banned communists from serving in certain roles.

WTF

[It passed because] many opposed communism because of its explicitly declared and historically demonstrable goal to undermine liberal democracy. In the words of Ernest van den Haag, there was “no place in democracy for those who want to abolish [it] even with a peaceful vote”.

• Wikipedia

The irony of using it here would be palpable

Thank you for your service brave memer

💯 we should all be very wary of voting machines. If it’s not fully open source and cryptographically verifiable, it’s not secure.

Context: I worked in IAM (computer security) at a past job.

In computer security, we don’t wait to get proof that a vulnerability was exploited. We have to operate under the assumption that any vulnerability was immediately exploited, and take immediate action to fix it and limit the impact. Doubly so when the stakes are high.

We need popular support to get real security experts to investigate these claims. If there was even a single path that could have led to a vulnerability of this scale, we need to completely secure these systems and do an immediate recount/re-vote.

I’ll also say, I was surprised to learn that these voting systems and their specs are not fully public and open source. That alone makes me very uncomfortable. Security through obscurity is not security at all.

That write up is much more than just “don’t vote.” It’s about fully withdrawing from the system and rejecting citizenship, including all of the things that come with it, like paying taxes and owning private property.

If someone pays taxes, legitimizes the government, and also doesn’t vote… Then that’s likely the worst of both worlds from the author’s perspective.

I’d encourage you to research more about this space and learn more.

As it is, the statement “Markov chains are still the basis of inference” doesn’t make sense, because markov chains are a separate thing. You might be thinking of Markov decision processes, which is used in training RL agents, but that’s also unrelated because these models are not RL agents, they’re supervised learning agents. And even if they were RL agents, the MDP describes the training environment, not the model itself, so it’s not really used for inference.

I mean this just as an invitation to learn more, and not pushback for raising concerns. Many in the research community would be more than happy to welcome you into it. The world needs more people who are skeptical of AI doing research in this field.

I see a lot of misunderstandings in the comments 🫤

This is a pretty important finding for researchers, and it’s not obvious by any means. This finding is not showing a problem with LLMs’ abilities in general. The issue they discovered is specifically for so-called “reasoning models” that iterate on their answer before replying. It might indicate that the training process is not sufficient for true reasoning.

Most reasoning models are not incentivized to think correctly, and are only rewarded based on their final answer. This research might indicate that’s a flaw that needs to be corrected before models can actually reason.