Nobody should be working for any government, givernment jobs should be stigmatized, people working for government should be stigmatized, gobernments shouldn't have employees. People working for governments should be scared that other normal people will find out.
Ignore network traffic until security self-defenses are in place.
Yeah, you can have a buffer overflow anytime, and they can be bad, but the situation explicitly pointed out an "invaders not recognized as evil before armed guards are posted" situation.
If this had been a bad buffer overflow that occurred AFTER the defenses were in place, maybe it would've resulted in a compromise, or maybe the defenses would've rendered it ineffective.
... the machine can be affected by outside input before it's security/self-defense system is ready?
Oops.
"Of every 2 million sold, less than 1 million are affected!"
Where is the high reward going to come from?
If - and this is a big if - Anthropic becomes and stays the industry-leader in LLMs AND if - and this is the second big if - the LLM/AI industry as a whole grows way faster than the rest of the economy - then Anthropic's stock appreciation will likely well-outpace the LLM/AI sector and the market as a whole.
That's the "big reward." The odds of that happening with Anthropic or any other particular AI/LLM company, or any AI/LLM company at all for that matter? Not big enough for me to want to play.
It's high-risk, high-reward, much like dot-coms of the 1990s.
There's also the "known unknowns" of regulatory risks both on the "what will AI be allowed to do" front and the regulations on power-hungry AI data centers themselves. We know these are categories of risks, but we don't have a good handle on how likely any given outcome will be 5 years from now. What are the odds that in 2031 America will be like "you want a data center here? Oh sure, no problem" vs. "you want a data center here? Not In My Backyard!" Once the regulatory environments stabilize it will be much easier to price this into "how much am I willing to pay for a given AI company's stock."
Right now, betting on an AI company's success 5 years down the road feels too much like betting on next year's World Series when we don't even know what the MLB Players Union contract will look like, or if there will even be a season next year.
And why on earth would I go to an llm or a human editor for
You or the person you are replying to may not need a human editor, but here are people whose grammar or spelling is so bad they could really benefit from an editor, human or otherwise.
There are also people whose first language is not English, or who are from a part of the world where English is spoken or written in a different style or dialect than Slashdot and they want their posts to not stick out like a sore thumb.
... my posts on Slashdot.
The work these shadowy agencies and departments do has been going on for decades.
Even without modern tech, shadowy people doing their work in back rooms of government agencies or in royal palaces are nothing new.
ChatGPT says all of this is completely possible.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6add...
How likely is it that Flock is not already using its network this way?
If you fuck up you're out. So don't fuck up in trivial ways that are easy to spot.
If you get credibly accused of.... So don't get credibly accused of....
That's the reality.
Now, if writing in a style that is "bot like" constitutes "f'ing up" then I'll concede your point. But someday soon, bots will be able to write in ways that, in a pre-LLM era, we would call "excellent writing." Even absent LLMs, computers already out-do humans at some intellectual tasks, like playing chess.
imagine how flock personnel uses flock network every day...AI allows drawing conclusions from mass movement information that can provide information far beyond just someone's location. It is probably possible even to figure out market moves based on movement of groups of people.
This is not just about following any one person, this is about information movement, following a group of people who work on the same project for example to undersrand when they are going towards the same site / goal. This is beyond dangerous.
Tests like these shouldn't be a "gotcha." They should be fair.
* Had employees already been through some basic anti-phishing training?
* Did the test include something that someone who paid attention during the training course would be reasonably expected to spot?
There is one other use for tests like these: To survey the population of employees: What % of employees clicked on the link, and what do we need to do organizationally (not "just for those who failed") to lower this number to something we can live with?
But it shouldn't be a "gotcha."
They can turn Ukraine into glass. "At all costs" means they will start and lose World War III because most of their nukes were spent turning every hectare of Ukraine into uninhabitable wasteland. But for the few minutes that Putin lives before the incoming missile vaporizes him, he can laugh maniacally and say "I beat Ukraine! Ukraine is no more!"
--
For the gallows-humor impaired, this is NOT a serious suggestion. There are no winners in a nuclear war. If he's even thinking about ordering a nuclear strike on Ukraine, even one bomb, hopefully one of his aides will be brave enough to make sure such an order is never followed.
"Nuclear war would really set back cable." - Ted Turner
