I once saw a headline that someone (I forgot who) said that “AI is weird”. All I could think was, well yeah, he’s been called “Weird Al” all of his professional life …

My bad, the illustration was supposed to be of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, who has been accused of trafficking fentanyl. On the one hand, it seems encouraging that they had to find someone who could more credibly be presented as criminal – hopefully an indication that their claims about the pro-Palestinian students and Argentinians with tattoos they’ve disappeared were not deemed credible enough by the general public.

Still, we only have the allegation of this administration against this person, so it’s quite possible she’s entirely innocent. It’s not like they give a fuck about actual crimes or making our country safer. They just want to be seen as badasses.

You got a link for that? I’m not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs

Upvoting for the concise summary of what the article is about (thanks!); not for the opinion expressed (which appears to conflate Russian developers with the actions of the Russian government – something I find problematic at best).

As far as I can tell from the article, the definition of “smarter” was left to the respondents, and “answers as if it knows many things that I don’t know” is certainly a reasonable definition – even if you understand that, technically speaking, an LLM doesn’t know anything.

As an example, I used ChatGPT just now to help me compose this post, and the answer it gave me seemed pretty “smart”:

what’s a good word to describe the people in a poll who answer the questions? I didn’t want to use “subjects” because that could get confused with the topics covered in the poll.

“Respondents” is a good choice. It clearly refers to the people answering the questions without ambiguity.

The poll is interesting for the other stats it provides, but all the snark about these people being dumber than LLMs is just silly.

The data at downforeveryoneorjustme make it appear that “only lasted for about half an hour” is BS. In fact, they appear to be having problems again this morning.

Something about https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1 , or at least that’s the model that everyone’s been talking about recently. It looks like it’d be half a terabyte to clone the entire repo though, and I don’t know how to use it either …

I spent most of my week poring over logs until I finally figured out what the issue was, then submitted a one-line commit to fix it. If my company used this bullshit, I’d be fired.

So, giving you what I called the choice dialog. That makes sense. Intent intercept wouldn’t help then, it would just give you one more basically irrelevant choice to do all the things (although it’s useful for developers).

Is it actually opening up the Sprinkler app for all those other purposes, or giving you a choice dialog? If it’s actually opening up the app, maybe installing Intent Intercept would at least make it a choice dialog, as it also tries to open everything (just to show information about the request; it’s a dev tool).

https://xkcd.com/1367/

Here: https://xkcd.com/503/

https://github.com/danielmiessler/SecLists/pull/155/

We used to have these shit developers and I accepted a lot of bad code back then – if it actually worked – because otherwise “code review” is full-on training, which is an entire other job from the one I was hired to do.

The client ditched that contracting firm, and the devs I work with now are worth putting in time on code review with – but damn, we got hella shit code in our codebase to deal with now. Some of it got tossed, some of it … we live with.

If your point is that Harris’s campaign team is full of people looking out for corporate interests, and that reflects poorly on her prospects for taking the side of the people when our interests oppose theirs … ok. It seems like you got a couple of snippets of evidence supporting that thesis: go, get your ducks in a row, and make a blog post with lots of links laying out the evidence as you see it, and we can consider it.

Making a headline that’s clearly deceptive when considered to be a description of the linked article (which is totally what it is; there is no wiggle room on this) is not going to do anything but annoy people and get them to vote down your post, even if the information considered on its own is something we’d want to know. Someone else will post it with a reasonable headline, and we’ll vote that one up.

Yeah, it’s gotten so bad I eventually ordered a USB cable checker to figure out what any given USB cable is capable of (and to see if the cable has gone flaky, which seems to happen a lot). I haven’t received it yet so I don’t know if I can recommend this item, but … gosh darn you sure need something like this.

The headline is inaccurate; what’s being referred to is this part of a statement from NaNoWriMo on the use of AI:

We also want to be clear in our belief that the categorical condemnation of Artificial Intelligence has classist and ableist undertones, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege (source)

That’s plenty bad enough, no need to embellish it.