hau

Sure. Also, we have to trust owner of the site. So it cannot show anything, strictly speaking. Still, it maybe puts a price on exploit demo. Some say "it goes around twitter", "bots are probing and exploiting it", "it's a biggest thing ever in cybersec history, invest in AI now". Some say "it's a fud".

Are these 500$ laying on a ground for anyone to take?

That's a good way to make claims about existence of a trivial exploit in the wild falsifiable.

It's not the same. People owning routers don't publish self-serving articles about their routers having this capability which is very dangerous and scary. That is, becoming part of botnet is completely unintended outcome, and most people are not suspecting it's even happening. It's not advertised and it's not bought, used or sold for this reason.

Owning a gun, writing articles about how powerful and dangerous your gun is, then making deals based on ability of your gun to kill people, and then getting completely astonished that "my gun killed some people, completely bonkers! (invest now)". It's not possible for the selling point of your product to be unintended.

>The film must be shot where the narrative takes place.

This one really stands out by exculding whole genres and not really adding anything interesting to work around.

This is dangerous terrorist version you are talking about. People can not be trusted with choosing their own conscience, that's how you get terrorists and pedophiles. Remotely attested module is trusted by democratic authority, not using it is basically admiting intention to hurt fellow citizens.

On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. State, municipal, border and patrol random checks for proper attestation of implants. Of course manufacture and installation of such implants is licensed and tightly regulated. Think of children.

It's not very different from smartphone. But now instead of modem you have nn "firmware" with broad capabilities to warn privacy and ethics police when you are out of line. Recording in the wrong place, or looking at a crime and not reporting. "Off mode" won't fly for a gun, and your implant threatens children, so I don't believe this could be delegated to the user.

Demo video shows user asking for a briefing for a board of directors. What's the value of user making such a request? Each board director could ask for a particular thing they require, or a briefing themself, eliminating human intermediary who gatekeeps mouse click for choosing style of a generated text. Considering there is no input from the user into the briefing this interaction is absurd. The tech they show eliminates the need for the actions shown.

Other example is "finding" employees. What's the purpose of a human in the middle? The implied result is contact list for potential employees. Will they write them invitation for the interview by hand?

I'm really confused why is this presented like this. It has this surreal dreamlike quality. Something is done. Emails sent, contacts acquired, profits unlocked, synergy achieved etc.

In 2014.

>2014 cybersecurity audit performed by the French Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI) at the museum's request

No Gemini model has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

I generally agree with gp. Checkout with your link says "This item is currently on pre-order" btw. Retail mini-pcs are somehow harder to obtain than general purpose ones.

What really matters is the society where we want to live in. It doesn't matter much what kind of technology allows private entities to reproduce creativity. We can assume these brains are not virtual and are actually organic and more capable than human ones, or that they are magical black boxes.

Since it changes incentives and mechanics of the creativity market so much it forces us to reassess current approaches. I can't agree that mechanism behind this tech and the approach to IP is of any consequence. We don't make laws, norms and judgements for the sake of our tools.

It's ok to say that we're not ready to arrange things in a proper way yet, without letting everything slide on some arbitrary technicality.

Makes sense. There is very little in common between physical theft and unauthorised information copying. It may be an act worse than theft in ethical or other way, but it's a different thing. Crude theft analogy is good to colour it a particular way and evoke emotions, but harmful for a reasonable discussion.

Oh I agree, producing text by llms which is expected to be produced by human is at least deceiving and probably plagiarising. It's also skipping some important work, if we're talking about some person trying to detect it at all, usually in education context.

Student don't have to perform research or study for the given task, they need to acquire an example of text suitable for reproducing their style, text structure, to create an impression of being produced by hand, so the original task could be avoided. You have to have at least one corpus of your own work for this to work, or an adequate substitute. And you still could reject works by their content, but we are specifically talking about llm smell.

I was talking about the task of detecting llm generated text which is incredibly hard if any effort is made, while some people have an impression that it's trivially easy. It leads to unfair outcomes while giving false confidence to e.g. teachers that llms are adequately accounted for.

I don't believe it's possible at all if any effort is made beyond prompting chat-like interfaces to "generate X". Given a hand crafted corpus of text even current llms could produce perfect style transfer for a generated continuation. If someone believes it's trivially easy to detect, then they absolutely have no idea what they are dealing with.

I assume most people would make least amount of effort and simply prompt chat interface to produce some text, such text is rather detectable. I would like to see some experiments even for this type of detection though.