That's a complete bald-headed lie and yet this gets 'Informative' ?
Depends. Was the bald-headed reference somehow oddly accurate?
If so, I'm Informed.
And Enlightened, Entertained, Bewildered and Bullshitted.
We need more tags.
Are politically-"minded" chatbots/LLMs any more persuasive than a good encyclopedia ? Or reading "Foreign Affairs" / "The Federalist Papers"? Or pillow-talking with your best-gal on a night with a full moon ?
The Federalist Papers might have been a good idea.
If the year were not 1984.
The chatbots swayed opinions by citing facts and evidence, but they were not always accurate -- in fact, the researchers found, the most persuasive models said the most untrue things.
Why do I envision an election year PPV event with two AI political chatbots each programmed to promote and defend their individual American political party, yelling at each other through Atmos-certified sound systems, with baby politician graphics in 4K IMAX?
Dammit, shut up and take my money already. Where do I buy popcorn.
Another interpretation:
Previously convicted hackers where purposefully hired and granted access to databases databases in order to plausibly delete database containing sensitive information some government departments didn't wanted published.
What a convenient way to transgress judges and Freedom of Information Act' requests.
Glad I wasn't the only one at least having some suspicion about that.
While clickbait fans fawn over the kewl enemy behind the gates cover story, I'm more questioning what was IN those databases and who directed them to target them.
Guess we'll know even less and suspect even more when they claim they can't recover them.
America is more than sure that critics donâ(TM)t get to abuse the word dementia after President Autopen.
You mean the orange shitgibbon right?
No.
“The key to pardon validity is whether the president intended to grant the pardon,”
I mean the President who actually knows and remembers why he pardoned people. Versus the one America entrusted for years who can't recall anything now. Including the fact he's now infamous for an auto-signing machine.
President Autopen? Which president is that? Most presidents have used autopens going back an awful long ways. Even Trump uses one, he has literally said as such.
You're right.
But only one dementia-addled President is now corruptly infamous for it.
While you raise those valid points on that side of the coin, I'll be on the flipside wondering exactly what was in those 96 databases someone directed them to target. The moron contracting with former criminals is only one problem layer here. Doubt it ends there. Doubt it started there.
Perhaps that deserves some light here in the midst of selling the cool enemy behind the gates story.
They don't do backups at those outfits?
More to the point, NONE of this data was deemed "sensitive" enough to warrant the most basic of background investigations?
(I'm assuming their former Federal-level hack resulted in a felony charge. When I say basic, I mean fucking basic.)
Should be direct hires with minimum SECRET clearances to access data like that. The fuck are they thinking. Starts with the contracting agency and goes from there. Anyone in
I remember that Apple never ported their QuickTime codecs to Linux so had to be reverse engineered and that a big argument against desktop Linux was that video playback was poor, along with other stuff like DRM, DeCSS and patents that hindered Linux video playback as well.
Wonder when VLC started to really gain popularity.
It's been a minute since I've found a need for any other player. Damn thing eats formats like a dirty Glock does ammo.
I’m pretty sure the phrasing didn't spring from his dementia-addled brain.
America is more than sure that critics don’t get to abuse the word dementia after President Autopen.
But how about we set up a PPV interview with the former Dumb and Dumber just to be sure. We could donate the proceeds to help with a cure for word salad mouth too.
"We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes," Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. "If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the AI race...
For most Americans, AI getting better just means a higher chance of being put out of work. Why would we want that? Let the Chinese put themselves at a risk of revolution faster. Wont bother me.
They're racing because they already know how organic greed in capitalism is going to react when the first AI solution even smells like it could be THE version/solution for business; they will use and abuse the shit out of it, regardless of who made it.
Much like today.
" Doubt you’ll find a retired Republican president worth more than any Democrat. " That will obviously change when Trump leaves office. To say otherwise would be pure bullshit on your part.
Using a foregone conclusion to attempt to shift complicity away from the corrupt wealth of the Pelosis, Clintons, and Obidens, reeks of desperation and pure bullshit. To claim otherwise, is called lying.
Deflecting from accountability while ignoring reality, is what loses elections. President Trump proved that.
Twice.
AWD wagons are useful regardless of your sexual orientation.
Are you implying that Subaru owners awesomely climb over more than curbs in parking lots?
Looking over at the $75K truck crowd who assumes dirt on the tires of their 4WD is grounds for taking the plastic off the seats and trading it in at a less-than-mint loss, I'm just a tad skeptical.
A co-worker of mine owned a Subaru Outback - he was kind of a hippy with long hair.
Dammit, I wonder gave their target demographic away.
I mean sure, not every car comes with your choice of patchouli dispenser or roll-your-own tampon maker, but still..
Eventbrite was an good way for small music venues to sell tickets electronically without have to deal with ticketbastard or axs. Easy to use and low fees for customers. For $500m, there's no way that persists
Next week we'll hear about a "strategic partnership" between Bending Spoons and Ticketbastard while regulators pretend to be shocked, shocked I tell you about it.
How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?
