Tailscale is pretty good, and i generally like the company, but there are definitely some gaps. For awhile it even lacked proper ipv6 support with mullvad.
dragonfly4933
joined 2 years ago
I think different people have different aversions to why they don't like or want to use AI.
In the case of "automatic" "filters" on pictures taken on phones, this is or was called computational photography. Over time more capabilities were added to these systems until we now have the moon situation and the latest NN processing.
If someone only cares about environmental impact, then that doesn't really apply in this case if the processing happens on device, since by definition a phone is low power and thus doesn't consume water for cooling or much power for compute.
However, some people care about copying, for numerous and possibly conflicting reasons. Generating assets might violate their sense that IP was stolen, since it's a pretty well known fact that that these models were created in large part with dubiously licensed or entirely unlicensed works. I think a reasonable argument can be made that the algorithms that make LLMs work parallels compression. But whatever the case, the legality doesn't matter for most people's feelings.
Others don't like that assets are generated by compute at all. Maybe for economic or political reasons. Some might feel that a social contract has been violated. For example, it used to be the case that on large social media, you had some kind of "buy in" from society. The content might have been low quality or useless drivel, but there was a relativly high cost to producing lots of content, and the owners of the site didn't have direct or complete control of the platform.
Now a single person or company can create a social media site, complete with generated content and generated users, and sucker clueless users into thinking it's real. It was a problem before, various people getting sucked into an echo chamber of their peers, now it is likely to happen that there will be another set of users get sucked into an entirely generated echo chamber.
We can see this happening now. Companies like openai are creating social media sites ("apps" as they call them now) filled only with slop. There are even companies that make apps for romance and dating virtual or fake partners.
Generated content is also undesirable for some users because maybe they want to see the output of a person. There is already plenty of factory bullshit on the various app stores, why do they need or want the output of a machine when there is already existing predatory content out there they could have now.
Some people are starting to wake up to the fact that they have only a single life. Chasing money doesn't do it for most. Some find religion, others want to achieve and see others achieve. Generating content isn't an achievement of the person initiating the generation. They didn't suffer to make it. A person slaves away in art school for years only to take a shit job they looked up to for years, then doing the best work they can under crazy pressure is an achievement.
This is correct, but not what most people think. For example, memory leaks could be considered bugs and it is easy to leak memory memory in safe rust on purpose.
Memory leaks are usually not disastrous for security, mostly an issue for availability, sometimes.
Explain how a use after free could occur in safe rust, because to my knowledge, that is exactly the kind of thing rust does protect against.
I don't think you are wrong, but here is a bit of my perspective.
Rot has been occurring in the industry for over 10 years now. There are now fewer qualified network engineers than around the turn of the century and companies are less willing to spend money on upgrades of network infrastructure (6500 is still relevant...). Also, many ISPs, at least in the US, have merged resulting in fewer diverse networks.
The upside now at least, is that ports are easily 100g, so you could argue that we need less network equipment and fewer engineers, but I'm not sure how much that offsets the problems. And 100+g ports don't help you properly run a network, except maybe make it a smaller problem if you need fewer ports.
There isn't a reason you can't use those same services for downloading any content you want. If you are using a front end of some kind, you can just try sourcing the content yourself and using a music streaming app. It's been awhile since I've looked into it, but there was subsonic. Also, most of the video servers like emby and plex also support music.
KVM/Qemu and Hyper-V also have snapshots, but hyper-v has a dumb name for them that I always forget.
I really wanted this feature, but when I actually used it, I realized that it's not quite as useful as I would have hoped, at least for the use case of just a "small" rust script.
A workflow I often have is to start hacking away at a problem with bash or some other scripting language, but then my command starts getting too long and unwieldy so I copy my command into a file to keep going. But with rust, you don't really do that, so I never progress to copying my command into a file.
Why would anyone get arrested? There is no requirement for a business to operate in Texas or for people in Texas. And it is almost a certainty that Google and Apple have clauses saying they can not serve anyone for almost any reason.
How does that answer my question, how do NFTs help an organization prove that a key belongs to them?
NFTs and blockchains are an entirely virtual construct that can't affect the real world, or take trusted, non-key inputs from the real world. That's not 100% true, but it is mostly true.
So really, you need a way to tie or bind a key to an identity or organization. You could perhaps sign some data, such as a domain name with a key on a chain, but that doesn't prove anything. Anyone could sign anything with any key, so you need to approach the problem from the other direction.
You can install the key directly, or the hash of the key into DNS, verifiers can retrieve the key from DNS, then resolve it to the full key if necessary. You can then use the key to verify signatures of signed data.
Why DNS? Because that is currently the most standard way to identify organizations on the internet. Also, much of the security of the internet is directly bound to DNS. For example, getting certificates for websites often entails changing a DNS record at the request of an issuer to prove that you own the domain in question.
This is not an idea I invented just now, there are multiple DNS record types that have been defined for literally decades at this point which allow an organization to publish keys to DNS. Among the first is this: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2535#section-3 Not completely related, but it is a key of some kind published to DNS.
I don't think NFTs provide any useful functionality in helping organizations prove that a key is theirs, at least nothing much better than a simpler solution which already exists.
How can an organization prove that a given key is theirs using NFTs?
view more: next ›
An issue I see with a lot of scripts which attempt to automate the generation of garbage is that it would be easy to identify and block. Whereas if the poison looks similar to real content, it is much harder to detect.
It might also be possible to generate adversarial text which causes problems for models when used in a training dataset. It could be possible to convert a given text by changing the order of words and the choice of words in such a way that a human doesn't notice, but it causes problems for the llm. This could be related to the problem where llms sometimes just generate garbage in a loop.
Frontier models don't appear to generate garbage in a loop anymore (i haven't noticed it lately), but I don't know how they fix it. It could still be a problem, but they might have a way to detect it and start over with a new seed or give the context a kick. In this case, poisoning actually just increases the cost of inference.