Does the game even have a Matrix community? To be honest, all I know about the game is that people kept going to the language’s subreddit posting about the game and getting their posts removed. Also, something about the new player experience being abysmal at one point, though I don’t know if that has changed.
almost everything else tends to be encrypted with SSL/TLS by default nowadays
FYI DNS supports DNS-over-HTTPS. You still need to trust the DNS server, but you can run one yourself at least if you’re worried about it.
Violent Outburst was initially banned in a very different version of Modern, just a hair over two years ago.
Is it not a concern that “just a hair over two years” later the power level of the format rose enough that WOTC believes a strategy is no longer a problem?
Anyway, no changes in standard is surprising.
?
Moderators have to ban them, but the bans are per server.
If you want to avoid children in the server for whatever reason, mark the channel as NSFW (though this might trigger the age verification BS for some people). Even without that, Discord generally has a minimum age requirement, so if someone admits to being below that age, you can report their account (and server owners might need to if they want to avoid issues).
There are many benefits to switching to something forum-based like Lemmy though. Aside from freeing yourself from Discord’s chokehold, you also get better archival of discussions for free, better discoverability through internet/post searches, better control over who can comment, a potential community of moderators, possibly better accessibility for visually-impaired people (even if only because images can have alt text), and so on.
Alternatives to Lemmy could be as simple as issues or discussions on the project, a community-maintained wiki, and so on.
The “F” stands for “free”. Free software is defined as having four essential freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Notably, this definition places no restrictions on ethics. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite:
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that matters, not the developer’s purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to other people, they are then free to run it for their purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on them.
What you are looking for is a different term, for example, “accessibility”. Accessibility of information is very important, but source availability and limited restrictions are what make something FOSS.
This whole thread seems weirdly dismissive of, and in some cases hostile to, maintainers of FOSS projects. To be clear, I’m not referring to OP here - the ID verification wall, and even the need to use a platform like Discord in general, are real problems. It’s many of the responses that are problematic.
The reason many projects have support servers on Discord is because that’s where their communities formed. For example, Rust has communities on Matrix and Discord. The majority of the community is on Discord. There’s also a lot of users who discuss the language on Reddit.
Communities existing on proprietary, walled off platforms isn’t the problem. The problem is when those platforms are the only way to access documentation or support. For projects like this, try creating an issue and explaining how ID verification stops you from accessing documentation and support, and see if they can open up discussions (if they’re on GitHub), create a community wiki, etc.
As for what to call them - let’s assume that anything that requires access to these platforms doesn’t exist. What do you call that? FOSS with shitty documentation? It’d still be FOSS at least.
art isn’t just what’s on the canvas
In fact, it often has nothing to do with what’s on the canvas, and entirely to do with the context the art was made in.
It would be very easy to write a script that burns tokens when your leaderboard position changes. The problem is competition, which if scripted, would result in tokens burned going through the roof at an accelerating pace.
Naturally, even with people, that will still happen. It’ll just be a little bit slower instead.
Eventually they will run out of money. The real question is whether the planet survives while they drain their bank accounts.
That codebase must be abysmal.
This is definitely an issue on WOTC’s part. It seems like it’s a misunderstanding between WOTC and Dan over what version was intended to be used.
If WOTC wanted digital art, they should have asked a digital artist to do it.
Well I use AI every day in Photoshop and Lightroom. AI tools are common and extremely useful in all sorts of media production already.
Photoshop used AI long before generative AI took off. Specialized models have existed for various domains for decades. This is unrelated to the current bubble.
Science is using it on modeling of protein folding, and large dataset analysis. I personally know one person using AI tools to analyze fMRI data in a study.
Science used AI long before generative AI took off. Specialized models have existed for various domains for decades. This is unrelated to the current bubble.
News media uses it in formulaic articles in finance and sports. They’ve been doing that with specialized software for a decade or more already.
News media is also dying. It’s saturated with low quality clickbait, and most major news sites are barely worth a mention anymore. Not only are the writers losing their jobs, but the businesses themselves are being bought out by larger investment companies and being turned into tabloid clickbait, propaganda tools, and listicles. I wouldn’t expect most of them to survive past the bubble, and that even has very little to do with generative AI anyway and more to do with a cultural shift in how people receive and consume news.
AGI wouldn’t be about a model that knows everything about language and every advancement in every field, but rather a model that is better than humans at finding solutions to problems
A LLM (or any other kind of model) that cannot adapt to changes in a field cannot perform better than humans in that field after that field experiences significant changes. Any such model would eventually degrade in output quality over time.
Also, AGI (artificial general intelligence) usually refers to an AI capable of performing all cognitive tasks at least as well as a human. It’s as much of a buzzterm as “AI” is, of course, so there’s an endless number of definitions for it. Such an AI should be capable of, at minimum, adaptation over time.
The point of a “smarter” model is not that it knows all the facts, that would be wasteful as it is trivial to look up facts at inference time.
An omniscient model would be impossible, but that’s not what I was referring to at all. LLMs these days fill their context windows with relevant information through careful prompting, tool calls, and so on. This is generally how a model is supposed to adapt. Context windows are bounded in size, though. It would have an increasing amount of information to include in that window over time, meaning the amount of data it needs to fit in the context window is unbounded.
Unless someone creates a LLM with infinite context (which would require infinite VRAM), such a LLM can never exist. Therefore, a LLM trained today will never be equivalent to (or better than) humans at all cognitive tasks for the entire future of humanity. There will always come a point where such a LLM’s output quality degrades, and it can do nothing to resolve that.
Edit: Here’s a simple example: a new written language emerges with all the complexities of a language like English. Humans can learn that language and communicate in it. A LLM cannot.
While I’m interested to see the proof, it’s more of a formality. It doesn’t take a PhD to ask what happens when the “AGI” LLM is trained on out of date information. They don’t learn over time, and they have a limited context buffer. At the very minimum, it would run out of context just keeping up with changes to spoken language over 30 years, let alone advancements in fields, new fields, and so on.
What you’re referencing is distillation. Anthropic even has an article on distillation “attacks” (as if they have some divine right to the data behind their models) that goes over it a bit.
recovery email which they did not hash
How do you recover an account on the other providers? Do you have to provide the same recovery email you set before during account recovery? If you hash the email, you have no way of reading it anymore, so someone has to provide it to you again.
I’ve had laptops where this is a BIOS setting. A simple switch on the side of the keyboard to flip which keys are on the fn layer solves the problem too. Same with key remapping, for keyboards that support that (and really any nice keyboard should or it’s not worth the cost).
Also,i’m sure you know this, but security through obscurity is a poor systems design choice in almost all scenarios.
The only time I can think of from the top of my head where obscurity aids security is when secret keys are kept obscure. This isn’t even what people mean by “security through obscurity” though, so I’d actually beg someone to give an example where obscurity is actually beneficial to security and doesn’t just give a false sense of security instead.
That’s not to say everything can or should be open source, of course, just that relying on it being closed source for your application to be secure is a good way to open yourself up to attacks.
What does any of this have to do with GPL or open source licenses? Military applications all have strict validation requirements that rule out the majority of open source anyway, and your first example doesn’t even explain how the software being open source would be dangerous at all. Actually, for that matter, nor does the military example. Encryption doesn’t work because the other party doesn’t know your algorithm lol, it works because the other party doesn’t know your secret keys.
I would expect the jury to be nothing less than world-class experts on statistics, linear algebra, and calculus once the case is decided.
Unless they’re adding locations and limiting the game to 6 turns (usually), I’m not really interested.
I’m sure there’s a lot of people out there excited for Marvel stuff in MTG. Good for them I guess. Personally, I’m more interested in WOTC focusing on creating new, interesting stories and planes, but that ship sailed a long time ago sadly. I guess eventually the in-game universe will collect dust next to battles, world enchantments, fortifications, and a low power standard format.