Imo signal protocol is mostly fairly robust, signal service itself is about the best middle ground available to get the general public off bigtech slop.
It compares favorably against whatsapp while providing comparable UX/onboarding/rendevous, which is pretty essential to get your non-tech friends/family out of meta's evil clutches.
Just the sheer number of people signal's helped to protect from eg. meta, you gotta give praise for that.
It is lacking in core features which would bring it to the next level of privacy, anonymity and safety. But it's not exactly trivial to provide ALL of the above in one package while retaining accessibility to the general public.
Personally, I'd be happier if signal began to offer these additional features as options, maybe behind a consent checkbox like "yes i know what i'm doing (if someone asked you to enable this mode & you're only doing it because they told you to, STOP NOW -> ok -> NO REALLY, STOP NOW IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO ENABLE THIS BY ANYONE -> ok -> alright, here ya go...)".
WinApps works by:
Running Windows in a Docker, Podman or libvirt virtual machine.
Querying Windows for all installed applications.
Creating shortcuts to selected Windows applications on the host GNU/Linux OS.
Using FreeRDP as a backend to seamlessly render Windows applications alongside GNU/Linux applications.
'free speech' has always been about the freedom of the oppressed to fight upwards against their oppressor with language - but now they stole it & trying to make it mean their freedom to oppress minorities.
same for 'woke' - it used to mean basic human decency, once again they stole it & warped it's meaning by pretending they're the victims and it's preventing their freedom (ie. their freedom to be a bigot).
same for 'political correctness', which was originally a criticism of using fake concern over moral issues for political agenda (sounds familiar), now warped beyond use.
swastika - used for THOUSANDS of years before the fucking nazis came along & stole it. now the cultures it actually belongs to get hate for practicing their ancient beliefs.
pepe and many others are a long list of things they steal and ruin.
anything which doesn't involve me having uncomfortable thoughts about the trustworthiness of a device which i coincidentally am already currently trusting with my embarrassingly human personal details.
intentionally eavesdropped on and/or recorded conversations using an electronic device
don't be silly. i know that's IMPOSISBLE because i read a headline from a big-tech-sponsored publication which said they can't do that (even though the article - which i didn't actually read - says they can)
accept that this is the part of the animal kingdom you've been born into. we ALL have these types of interactions so noone can really judge anyone for it.
therefore just chuckle about it, and shrug it off.
i was mostly thinking of intentionally introduced stochastic processes during training, eg. quantisation noise which is pretty broadband when uncorrelated, and even correlated from real-world datasets will inevitably contain non-determinism, though some contraints re. language "rules" could possibly shape that in interesting ways for LLMs.
and especially the use of stochastic functions for convergence & stochastic rounding in quantisation etc. not to mention intentionally introduced randomisation in training set augmentation. so i think for most purposes, and with few exceptions they are mathematically definable as stochastic processes.
where that overlaps with true theoretical determinism certainly becomes fuzzy without an exact context. afaict most kernel backed random seeds on x86 since 2015 with the RDSEED instruction, will have an asynchronous thermal noise based NIST 800-90B approved entropy source within the silicon and a NIST 800-90C Non-deterministic Random Bit Generator (NRBG).
on other more probable architectures (GPU/TPU) I think that is going to be alot rarer and from a cryptographic perspective hardware implementations of even stochastic rounding are going to be a deterministic circuit under the hood for a while yet.
but given the combination of overwhelming complexity, trade secrets and classical high entropy sources, I think most serious attempts at formal proofs would have to resign to stochastic terms in their formulation for some time yet.
there may be some very specific and non-general exceptions, and i do believe this is going to change in the future as both extremes (highly formal AI models, and non-deterministic hardware backed instructions) are further developed. and ofc overcoming the computational resource hurdles for training could lead to relaxing some of the current practical requirements for stochastic processes during training.
this is ofc only afaict, i don't work in LLM field.
some people label themselves christian and feel that label is a free pass for venomous bigotry. my feeling is that's perhaps a bit un-christ-like, actually.
ignoring the hate-brigade, lemmy users are probably a bit more tech savvy on average.
and i think many people who know how "AI" works under the hood are frustrated because, unlike most of it's loud proponents, they have real-world understanding what it actually is.
and they're tired of being told they "don't get it", by people who actually don't get it. but instead they're the ones being drowned out by the hype train.
and the thing fueling the hype train are dishonest greedy people, eager to over-extend the grift at the expense of responsible and well engineered “AI”.
but, and this is the real crux of it, keeping the amazing true potential of “AI” technology in the hands of the rich & powerful. rather than using it to liberate society.
Good reminder that LLM output could be made deterministic!
Though correct me if I'm wrong, their training is, with few exceptions, very much going to be stochastic? Ofc it's not an actual requirement, but under real world efficiency & resource constraints, it's very very often going to be stochastic?
Personally, I'm not sure I'd argue automation can't be stochastic. But either way, OP asks a good question for us to ponder! The short answer imo: it depends what you mean by "automation" :)
Imo signal protocol is mostly fairly robust, signal service itself is about the best middle ground available to get the general public off bigtech slop.
It compares favorably against whatsapp while providing comparable UX/onboarding/rendevous, which is pretty essential to get your non-tech friends/family out of meta's evil clutches.
Just the sheer number of people signal's helped to protect from eg. meta, you gotta give praise for that.
It is lacking in core features which would bring it to the next level of privacy, anonymity and safety. But it's not exactly trivial to provide ALL of the above in one package while retaining accessibility to the general public.
Personally, I'd be happier if signal began to offer these additional features as options, maybe behind a consent checkbox like "yes i know what i'm doing (if someone asked you to enable this mode & you're only doing it because they told you to, STOP NOW -> ok -> NO REALLY, STOP NOW IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO ENABLE THIS BY ANYONE -> ok -> alright, here ya go...)".