Wilder7977

One Armenian server provider got compromised, Bunny assumed (rightfully) compromise of their servers in that one POP and issued a timely set of responses.

As a customer, I couldn't ask anything more. No ambiguity, no downplaying, no word salads. If anything this incident increased my confidence in the company.

In a work context this still creates tension and constraints. Work is not a context where we are free to express ourselves, so even such an "expression" creates a situation where I either piss off someone else or self-police. Given that you might have a particular role in the organization, might be trusted by people in a certain role or might simply represent a potential case where HR gets involved, self-policing becomes the safest, obvious choice. This means I don't really have a free choice to make, because the impact of such choice can go beyond our respective opinions on each other.

My personal experience in a UK/US company as a non-native English speaker includes this specific case. I still remember this very example (I.e., the use of "guys") being used as an example of noninclusive language from day-2 in the company (it was in some policy), 5 years later. It requires a nontrivial amount of energy and attention for me to self-police in a language that is already not my own, and I personally stress about it (including the few times I had slip-ups where I automatically said "hi guys" to a mixed group and corrected myself in a clumsy way). There are countless ways I could express my preference (speak slower, less accent when speaking, don't use idiomatic expressions or metaphors that are very language specific, maybe learn to pronounce my name how I pronounce it rather than english-ize it). I personally never expressed any of these because I wouldn't want to cause stress to anybody for something so minor, and I believe people will feel less free to talk with me.

This is just my opinion, but being someone who cares about not making others uncomfortable, I think we should all be realistic about what it really means to express such preferences at work, because it's not just a personal matter.

They released it just few days ago (maybe 2 weeks or so). I personally got a mail in my inbox for the release, but maybe it's because I have left feedback about it or something. A very welcome news nevertheless!

Yours is simply a logical fallacy. Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. That's a fact, they are ideologies expressed in a multitude of ways, most of which absolutely pacific. This doesn't mean that it's impossible for terrorist acts to be committed in the name of those ideologies, but also this doesn't make those ideologies inherently equivalent to terrorism.

What does socialism have to do with universal health care?

For someone who is making a point of using correct terminology this seems really strange. Universal healthcare is a policy that is completely compatible with capitalism, implemented by countries even far from being social democracies.

Using GenAI on things that you couldn't approach is also extremely scary and dangerous in my opinion. For example, I would never in a million years use generated code I don't understand (fully) to interface and possibly interact with a physical object that can fail, catch fire, break etc. in case of a bug or misuse, like OP mentioned.

Apparently yes, judging from the fact that ChatGPT did that with a number of people.

My question though it's another: is it malware a software that does a stdout print, or is it malware a software that takes untrusted instructions and executes commands it decides based on it?

I think this is an interesting (although philosophical debate). The library doesn't take destructive actions, it prints a string that says "go do something". This is quite common in logs (e.g., wrong configuration, ensure this value is [...]).

It is the agent that takes the destructive action, following an instruction that was not given by the operator of the agent.

If following instructions outside of the operator can cause malicious or damaging actions, publishing software that does so (I.e., most agents) is publishing malware?

Anyone physically near your house can just see you leaving the house and know you are not at home, besides all the other signs.

There is no control against this, and it shouldn't be something you rely on to prevent break-ins or burglaries (if you were thinking of such threats).

Yes, correct.

Is the distinction between human labor/actions and a program executing hard to grasp?

Moral is a human thing, not an absolute thing, so of course it's different if there is a single human involved and a tool, and a human with a relationship to other humans.

So no external libraries for anything? Billions of lines of code that duplicate the same thing n-times across an organization?

And the benefit is the obscurity of "no one will know how to exploit them"?

No, thanks.

It's not though. It's still just a piece of code, much closer to IDEs or any other program than to a human assistant in any way that matters (morals, responsibility).

Aerospace makes my Mac usable, but it is a looooong way from what i3 offers in my experience. i3 is way snappier, super stable, with good features out-of-the-box (including a status bar) - you forget it exists. Aerospace is slow, has to use that "windows in the corner" hack, it constantly resets whenever I resume the mac from sleep, needs additional tool for a status bar and more.

Much of it is not a fault of Aerospace, it's just what you get using Apple products in a non-sactioned way.

This seems completely detached from reality.

For example it ignores the gazillion medium(-like) "articles" that are not much more than the output of a prompt. Here AI is not about style, is about content too. If you open such a post, maybe with the intent of learning anything, and you realize is AI slop, you might close it. Making it harder to recognize is poisoning the well in such cases.

Democratizing? A handful of companies harvesting data and building products on top of it is democratizing?

Open research papers, that everyone can access is democratizing knowledge. Accessibile worldwide courses, maybe (like open universities).

But LLMs are not quite the sane. This is taking knowledge from everyone and, in the best case, paywalling it.

I agree in spirit that the original comment was classist, but in this context your statements are also out of place, in my opinion.