ahofmann

The obvious AI stuff is obvious, all the rest is either human generated, or you aren't able to detect that it's not.

So I would argue the world is already "a darker place".

Whoops, you are right. Sorry!

Yes, but this is a Linux/licensing problem. Use one of the BSDs and the ARC doesn't fight with the system cache.

I would argue that Krebs is exactly the type of guy who will do anything for a good story, whatever it costs. I saw him lying more than once and this eroded my trust completely.

This looks like two different problems to me: one is the expectation of the behavior of the service (whether it talks with an external service at all) and another one is if the service is technically safe (the call to the external service makes my passwords guessable or not). I can't argue with your analogy, because it doesn't make sense to me.

How? What is you definition of unsafe?

If you don't bother to write your own announcement, I don't bother to look at your thing.

Also frenck explained how the feature works and why this is save.

On the other side Viss basically just said "trust me bro, it is not save and by the way, I'm THE expert and I'm so very smart, that I don't even need to list some facts why this could be unsafe, just fix it NOW", which I find exhausting, unhelpful and boring.

The tool looks interesting, but man it is sooo hard to read the LLM generated blog post as a human. Not because the text is bad (it kind of is), but because it doesn't feel like anyone has put any energy and real work into it. So it feels like a waste of my time to read something, that could have been three short sentences and a benchmark table without loosing much information.

To play devils advocate: Isn't it that the management had to choose between two potential problematic decisions? What if the management declined the hindu request and then the hindus made a big fuss about it? Wouldn't people scream "how could they think that discriminating the hindu religion would be a good decision?!?".

Everything around LLMs is blatantly misleading. There is no thought, there is no personality in those programs. I really despise how those tools are trained to sound like a person, or appearing as honest. The worst offender are the AI voices with their fake pauses, breathes and so on, which sound so convincing, while talking just false, sycophancy bullshit.

The work of Zuse is way out of the danger zone, isn't it? Mobile phones with LCDs are in the danger zone, or the phone booth, but not the first working computers ever build.