TehPers

What’s yours? Pay Anthropic $2k/mo to generate fake C&D letters and send them out to random businesses?

Unless you have a plan that doesn’t rely on the service-based models, then I don’t see where you’re going with this. Sure, you can use self-hosted models, assuming you’re fine paying for the GPUs (Jensen Huang? Lisa Su? Lip-Bu Tan if you’re feeling special?) and power to run them of course. But you’ll be “behind” the big cloud-based models, endlessly chasing after them.

Or, hear me out, don’t use them and do it all yourself and you won’t have to pay these companies and make their execs richer.

With a saguaro.

I call it a car subscription, and it’s for people who make poor financial decisions. It’s better to buy a car you can afford, pay it off, and own it until it becomes unsustainable to keep it running.

Unfortunately, any tools a screen reader can use to read the page are tools a LLM can use. Without challenge-based solutions like Anubis, I’m not sure what can really be done that isn’t IP whack-a-mole.

If it comes down to losing accessibility or losing the website due to scrapers obliterating the hosting costs, then I think most website admins would rather just put a “use OCR” message at the top of their skip nav.

As much as I hate using JS for this, I wonder if there’s a JS-based solution that gets the best of both worlds while killing off scraping. Serve this obfuscated trash initially, then swap it out after completing some challenge sometime after FCP.

Well that was a dodged bullet. I’m glad we settled on a different car when we got ours recently.

Still, I think pretty much the whole industry is moving towards SaaS bullshit. Everything from subscription heated seats to ads in the infotainment. Hell, even in our new car, I can’t start the car without it begging me to connect to Amazon and setup Alexa. It’s making me miss my older car’s basic dash and infotainment honestly, but getting Android Auto/Car Play and a suspension that doesn’t feel like the Tower of Terror (or whatever it’s called now) whenever we go over a speed bump was life changing.

This shit should be illegal. At the very least, I hope that ad isn’t playing while driving.

GitHub more like ShitHub

Codeberg is free. If you need uptime, self host it.

This is undecided by courts.

From what I’ve found from some simple research, it’s possible that if it’s reproducing the same information as another user that the website is protected, possibly even if the LLM modified the exact presentation of that information.

If it’s creating new claims, then I think it’d be likely that whoever is running the service would be liable. Who knows though, since they might just claim that the new claims are from its training data and therefore they are protected.

In an ideal world, we’d just follow Germany’s example and hold the website liable for any new content generated by a LLM. Ideally, if you make shit up, you made the claim, and if you’re parroting a user, the user made the claim.

I’d imagine due to current circumstances, the US would want to shield AI companies though because politicians want money and the SCOTUS is useless.

This reminds me of Rossman’s praise for the AI overviews when it helpfully informed everyone that he has paid sponsors and his friend was a 9/11 terrorist. Except it wasn’t praise.

The AI summary at the top is like asking a college freshman to summarize the latest research in a field. It’s accurate enough to be dangerous, but not accurate enough to be reliable.

This. A charge isn’t a conviction, though.

Plausable deniability might help you here as long as you can think of a valid reason why you had that code on the note. It could be as simple as “this is the code I needed to remember for this one game” or something too. As long as you don’t tell them that the note contains the code to your phone, you can pretend the note contains a code of some other value instead later on and let them shoot themselves in the foot.

As a general rule, most lawyers would tell you if you are under arrest to say nothing more than what you are required to by law. Since this is at a border, it gets weird, but that’s what makes this case unusual as well. Under normal circumstances, they might seize the phone as evidence, but saying nothing might result in them wiping the device themselves before they ever get a warrant for the passcode.

He could just as easily argue he was forced to give the password under duress and accidentally gave them the wrong password.

It’s not really a case of duress. Legal searches are also done under duress, and you can’t just argue to a judge “well I got nervous and shredded the documents”.

What it really boils down to is whether border agents can search a phone without a warrant on entry, or whether the search was illegal. As part of it, they also need to decide whether a person has their Miranda rights during entry to a country. The answer, in my opinion, should be obvious (the alternative is you have no rights on entry), but with the current courts, who knows what they’ll decide.

Also highly illegal.

This is where the question about Miranda rights comes in, and whether the question of whether the constitution grants rights during entry comes in as well. If you have no rights, then it can be argued you have no right to demand a lawyer either.

This case is really strange.

The case raises questions about which constitutional rights apply at US borders, including international airports, where authorities have broader search powers.

On the one hand, destroying evidence during an investigation or which someone believes might be linked to one is a generally bad idea. However, to me it seems like the border agents should have had no right to search the phone without a warrant. Seize maybe, but not search. If the search was illegal and the case dismissed (especially since Tunick was not read Miranda which seems to imply there was no arrest?), then I think it would be hard to argue that any evidence was destroyed because the investigation itself would have been performed illegally.

In any case, doing this in a legal search of the phone (with a warrant) is most likely illegal.

Nah they’re ugly af.

If you wrap them (like you should), then you can make them look cool though. Some of my favorites that I’ve seen are bright pink, yellow, and various wraps covered in decals.

Without wrapping them, they look like scrap metal on wheels.

Your phone stores the code on the device and does facial recognition locally. Apps on your phone only receive that data if they explicitly request your camera and perform the recognition themselves.

This is vastly different than sending Google a video of your face that they save on their servers and use to analyze future selfie videos.

But assuringly its just an encrypted passcode created with an algorithm using measured face data.

From the article:

Selfie videos can be used for login purposes, to verify your age for accessing certain account features, and to create an AI avatar.

It’s not just an encrypted passcode.

While I agree with your points and sentiment, the US civil rights laws (including the Civil Rights Act) are being continuously torn apart by billionaires and religious lunatics, so maybe not the best example.

Regardless, there are plenty of examples of laws succeeding in bettering the status quo going even as far back as Babylon.

If you’re in a position to dictate what shareholders get, you have no real reason to go public. Just keep it privately owned.

You go public to raise funds. The least reasonable thing to do to someone is ask them for money with a pinky promise that they might make a profit. Usually, those people are going to want something in return, like a say in how their money is spent.

From what I can see (and via translation), their published reasoning is, among other reasons, to protect national security and social interests.

So what are the risks that China is worried about to social interests? Well, we can find that in their AI Safety Governance Framework. Jumping specifically to the risks regarding anthropomorphic AIs (ethical risks):

(d) Addiction and dependence on anthropomorphic interaction

AI products based on anthropomorphic interaction foster users’ emotional dependence and influence their behavior, creating ethical risks.

They conveniently list some of their concerned outcomes from influencing their behavior, including disrupting conventional views on childbirth:

(e) Challenges to existing social order

The development and application of AI brings profound changes to production tools and relations, accelerating the restructuring of traditional industries, disrupting conventional views on employment, childbirth, and education, and challenging the established social order.

So did China ban these AIs over birth rates? It seems to have been part of the discussion, at the very least. Like all things in life, it requires more nuance than just “birth rates” to explain. However, the concerns stated by Matt Sheehan (who seems to be the source for the “birth rates” claim that the news outlets are going with) provides more nuance in his explanation as well:

“They don’t like the idea of a large portion of their population being in deep emotional relationships with chatbots that could take them out of the marriage market, that could have negative psychological impacts on them, that could lead to addiction, dependency and a whole bunch of other social ills,” said Matt Sheehan, who studies Chinese AI at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.

All this to say that yes, the explanation that it’s about birth rates is an easy to consume concept for Western audiences.

But also, yes it’s a true concern that the Chinese government has specifically linked to anthropomorphic AIs.

So… China didn’t ban relationship bots? Or are you saying that the article is written in a way to condemn China’s decision to ban them?

Worth calling out here is the opponent can still sneak/ninjutsu in response if they have another card that can in hand. If you suspect that the opponent plays more than one card with sneak/ninjutsu and has untapped mana, you might want to consider that possibility before targeting the creature.

As an example:

• Opponent declares some creature as an attacker.
• You declare no blockers.
• Opponent casts Michelangelo, returning the attacker to hand, and it resolves.
• You target it with Maze of Ith to remove it from combat. The ability is on the stack, but not yet resolved.
• Opponent casts Donatello, Gadget Master for his sneak cost, returning Michangelo to hand. It resolves.
• Maze of Ith’s target is invalid. The ability does nothing.
• Your opponent passes priority, then you pass priority. In the damage step, Donatello deals combat damage to you and triggers.

Basically, during the declare blockers step, sneak/ninjutsu lets you juggle creatures around at instant speed as long as you have the mana.

I’ve read tamer media that would still qualify as questionable. I think the real question is whether something is “NSFW” if it’s written media rather than visual since it’s unlikely a colleague is reading your book.

That being the case, F-Droid has its own definition for NSFW, and no reasonable definition of NSFW that doesn’t specifically exclude written media or religious texts would exclude the Bible (or any Abrahamic religious text, really). It’s more that those books get a pass for historical reasons than anything else.

I’m definitely not the target audience for this, but I know a lot of people who would love something like this. Please continue to post updates now and then!

Long term, it’d be cool to see iOS support as well, though that’s not easy to do. Since it’s still in early development, I’m curious if that’s on your radar. If not, makes sense of course. Just throwing that out there since you’re asking for feedback.