xeyownt

The conclusion is correct. Closed models don't need to send your data, since the data is there already.

Eat you musk.

How would losing ownership be a bad thing?

Isn't that exactly what we are trying to achieve by re-distributing the wealth, and avoiding that few people have such huge ownership that they have more power than governments ?

We are still living in a middle-age system, where the lords don't own lands but stocks and companies, but they still dictate the laws.

You timeshare the girl?

Ok taking the :door:...

So... the Super Intelligence is Democrat?

Yup.

Something that the bot overlord didn't even think to say in its superdense page intro.

That's the problem with AI-generated text. They have no idea of what proper context is.

Stop caring because not seeing initiatives is like inverting responsibilities.

Initiatives will come if people care.

Never in history the solution to major crisis came from politicians or alike.

Even if your contributions is small, it doesn't prevent you to do them. By which extent is a personal choice, but personally I chose to be consistent with myself and my values, and I don't care about the choices of others.

Regarding airplane, I much prefer an 8h+5min trip in train than a 1h+2h trip in plane because comfort is way better and you are not dealt with like cattle. Of course I wish the price advantage would be different than nowadays.

Electric cars are not yet the perfect solution, but they are already way better than fuel cars. As for the rest, my government says its the way to go, then I go.

Note that in GIEC report, nuclear (fission or fusion) was not identified as a major solution to climate change (only contribute 10% of the whole). The main contributors were green energies.

This comment shows how much disinformed you are on that question.

The temporary transition to coal was studied long time ago and identified as the best solution even though it would increase CO2 for a small time. But in compensation it would allow to transition faster to green energy thanks to savings done on nuclear, hence overall reducing faster CO2 emission.

> Meta is going to win consumer AI.

That zucks.

You are missing the point.

The point is that you have an AI system that claims having found a cure to cancer and passed all requirements. You can only interface with that AI system or with published results (run by the AI), you can't run experiments on your own.

Would you trust it to take the cure?

Of course, you won't.

don't know about AGI, but humor is gone.

Ok, so the guy manages GitHub and doesn't want to pay the price.

Fair enough.

But the worrying part is that he seems really convinced that his security analysis of the vulnerability is complete, and that we should be convinced as well.

If you didn't need a strong hash, use a very fast one then, like MurMurHash.

How they changed?

For all practical purpose SHA-1 is a bad hash function, it's slow, it's insecure.

If SHA-1 is not a security measure, why do you even sign the commit. It doesn't make any sense. You give a strong signature on something weak.

"It does, however, drastically lower the estimated security of RSA, and it does so in a way no one knew of previously"

Wrong.

Multiplicative structure of RSA is known since it was invented, and that's exactly why standard like PKCS were created. This attack is NOT applicable to these standards (as said in the article). Author shows a poor understanding of the field.

Using RSA blinding signatures is like using windows 95 and connect it directly to the internet.

So all Europe are managed the same way?

What do you know about how the grid is operated anyway?

"Works for me, so must work for everybody."