Skip Navigation

Posts
14
Comments
268
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • “Temu is designed to make this expansive access undetected, even by sophisticated users,” Griffin’s complaint said. “Once installed, Temu can recompile itself and change properties, including overriding the data privacy settings users believe they have in place.”

    So just like the majority USAian app out there?

    Which apps do that? Because I am certain it's NOT the majority, and very skeptical about any other apps doing that.

  • Will it move the mouse for me?

  • What are you referring to as obviously fake? The article about that bot account?

  • What are those options?

    Domain and IP block lists?

  • Does it apply if you don't say that you are posting under the license? It may be implied, the intent is reasonably clear, but an argument of ambiguity can be made. You're merely linking to a license.

    Does it apply if the link label mismatches the license? CC by-nc-sa does more than deny commercial AI training. It requires attribution, requires general non-commercial use, and requires share-alike.

    Personally, I prefer when it's at least differently formatted to indicate it as a footer and not comment content. I've seen them smaller and IIRC italic on other commenters, which seems more appropriate and less distracting and noisy [for human consumption]. When the comment is no longer than the license footer… well…

  • So what you're saying is that we need AI do interface in-store as well? /s

  • I don't think it seems like too few samples for it to work.

    What they train for is rather specific. To identify anger and hostility characteristics, and adjust pitch and inflection.

    Dunno if you meant it like that when you said "training people's voices", but they're not replicating voices or interpreting meaning.

    learned to recognize and modify the vocal characteristics associated with anger and hostility. When a customer speaks to a call center operator, the model processes the incoming audio and adjusts the pitch and inflection of the customer's voice to make it sound calmer and less threatening.

  • I think it's to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it's a bot summary, not a human summary, it's acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn't, it can indicate other content.

    I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).

    Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don't have to read it.

  • There was no reason they had to implement it with scan though, was there?

  • How do you think the US tried to make China invade?

    I think it's a bafflingly absurd claim. And I'm surprised some people wouldn't doubt it.

    How does this fit into China invading and harassing other ships in international waters near Taiwan? Or China punishing Taiwans independent election results by doing military maneuvers around Taiwan, clearly showing force and threatening. And the constant reiterations of considering Taiwan as part of China. Integration of Taiwan is a clear and repeatedly voiced goal. Their willingness to use force was shown repeatedly; in Tibet, Hong Kong, and against minorities in their own established lands.

    I don't see how with such a discrepancy believing the Chinese claims makes any sense. It's smoke and trying to influence and irritate the western nations and their alliances. Similar playbook to Russia.

  • title: … to increase propanda efforts worldwide

    A pro panda initiative?

    content: propaganda

    oh…

  • the $80 billion start-up

    lol, can you still call that start-up?

  • A title, a teaser text, two paragraphs, and only in the one after inside a quote can I read that it's limited blocking within Russia, not a general removal or blockage.

  • Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit. Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation.

    You're claiming those forms are the same as any stock market company?

  • What is dissenter

  • Right now it's entirely timestamp-based. That means it can interface and work on simple playback terms. On time, jump, jump to time, etc. Having to get frame data and hash it, and make playback depend on it adds a lot of technical complexity.

    If ad length varies you don't even know how far to jump ahead. And if you haven't prebuffered the data until after the ad, you can't find out from a hashed after-frame-hash-value either.

  • I think you're grossly misrepresenting what the NATO does, how it expands, Ukraines own interest, and Russias views.

    NATO is a voluntary and self determined collection of states, a collection of states. States have an inherent interest in their own safety. For that reason the NATO expanded passively.

    How can you say Russia needs buffer zones and NATO not "getting closer" while denying any countries closer or next to Russia any form of safety net like the NATO? It's plainly obvious what the bigger threat is. Russia is invading neighboring countries. Not the other way around.

    Can you cite regarding your claims of pressure on Ukraine to decline a peace deal - where Ukraine would have even went for it? I assume the claim that the reason is monetary profit is pure speculation?

    Ukraine has had a clear position on peace talks. It's a country that is being invaded. Even when losses increased that didn't change much. Out of their own interest, stance, and necessity. (I don't know if that changed more recently, I'm not up-to-date on that specifically.) Accepting loss of land and people amongst Russias atrocities and treaty violations is a hard ask when it's your people and home.

    Back to the main point and opener of your comment:

    The "expansion" of NATO is a Russian narrative that Russia uses as smoke and mirrors. Like it does in any and all of their communication. Is it actually part of their reason for invasions? Maybe. But it's not the only one, and unverifiable. Claiming that NATOs "expansion" justifies Russias activities is actively supporting Russia, and frankly, insulting to the invaded and violated people - that have a right to live without invasion and atrocities.

    Russia was safe. Europe and the EU were actively connecting and supporting Russia and its people. NATOs "expansion" is a Russian narrative to mislead.

    /edit: Bolding for some highlighting.

  • Are they gonna pay them out? /s

    Every employee could create their own companies and products. Opportunities and diversification!

    Alternatively, each and every one of them can make 101 millionaires and still be a millionaire themselves!