If it's anything like their content ID copyright enforcement mechanism, I'm sure this will go absolutely perfect and there will be no drama whatsoever.

=Smidge=

It's called Jevons Paradox

In short: the more efficiently you can use a resource, the better the ROI you get for investing in the utilization of that resource, and the more people consume.

This applies to computing power. Maybe it doesn't make sense in 1974 for a small business to invest in computer workstations for their staff. But by 1994 computers were so much more powerful, so much more capable, and actually cheaper relative to that capability (read: more efficient) that it now makes no sense to NOT invest in the technology for your business.

If this succeeds in lowering the barrier to entry for leasing AI data center resources, expect demand to go up as more people try to do more things.
=Smidge=

Look man, I know actually understanding things isn't your strong suit but white-knighting Roblox is not a good look.

Yes, religious organizations have been and still very much are a hotbed for child abuse and assault. I fully agree we should be doing a lot more to investigate and incarcerate offenders among the clergy and related professions.

But even if I accept it's "the primary vector of attack" - and these days I'm not entirely convinced that's true anymore - it does you no favors to handwave literal tens of thousands if incident reports associated with Roblox. 13,000 reports from Roblox in 2023 alone. And that's Roblox reporting them... given how much effort they put into protecting predators on their platform, if they themselves reported 13K incidents you can imagine the real number is much larger.

Maybe imagine that Roblox is like a Jesus Camp with 70+ million children attending every day and there are zero safeguards in place.
=Smidge=

> We have decades and decades of studies on this. Children are going to be assaulted and taken advantage of by people they know who are in positions of power.

"People they know" include people they make friends with online.

"Positions of power" include people who offer money (robux) in exchange for favors.

Yes, we should be putting a lot more priests and cops in prison for child abuse and exploitation, but Roblox is a MASSIVE playground for exploitation and fishing. This has been an open secret for years with a fairly recent media fiasco involving Schlep. Apparently Roblox was more interested in banning him and any mention of him on their platform for the high crime of reporting predators to the authorities than they are about actually punishing those predators at all.

> But whatever the case going after Roblox isn't going to save any children.

You are either fucked in the head if you believe this, or scared of getting caught yourself.
=Smidge=

> If they are not grown in dirt that has arsenic in it

Good luck finding dirt that doesn't. It is present naturally in topsoils everywhere, and because of the way rice fields are commonly irrigated, those fields tend to have higher than typical amounts. The the rice itself is exceptionally good at absorbing it.

Not so say it's ever a dangerous quantity; actually getting arsenic poisoning from eating rice is vanishingly rare. That's kind of the point I was making; if your response to protein supplements containing toxic metals is to just eat natural proteins, bear in mind that natural proteins ALSO contain toxic metals... and you just happened to choose the worst two crops for your example.
=Smidge=

> Rice and beans

Rice is abnormally high in arsenic compared to other grains, especially brown rice. Legumes seem to have a higher affinity for heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium compared to other plants, to the point where they are actively studied for potential use in cleaning pollution from fields.

Delicious.
=Smidge=

Are Bitcoin and Etherium cryptocurrencies? If so, then this is too.

There's a reason I cited Coinbase.

Saying it's not doesn't make it so.
=Smidge=

> Stablecoins are not cryptocurrency.

"Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to another asset, such as a fiat currency or gold, to maintain a stable price."

https://www.coinbase.com/learn...

=Smidge=

> Now apply the same logic to a colonoscopy.

Okay?

A colonoscopy is diagnostic. It analogy in terms of fire alarms is a fire drill, where you practice efficient evacuation and condition yourself to respond to the alarm.

What's your point? Did you have one?
=Smidge=

> [citation needed]

If your test has a high false positive rate, you are spending extra time and resources investigating potential problems that are not actually problems. It also undermines trust in the system. The real world consequences of this are not hard to spot; If the fire alarm in your office or apartment has a record of going off without there ever being an actual fire, how much more likely are you to delay acting every time it goes off, or ignore it completely? People die because of this effect.

Medicine also has a real problem with false positives. Imagine testing positive for cancer, spending the next few months worrying about it and possibly getting treatments or surgeries which have their own risks (and expenses), only to find out it was all for nothing? This is also a very real thing that happens.

Now maybe the cost of false positives in the case of finding software vulnerabilities isn't quite so dire, but the effect is still real. For every positive result, someone has to spend time looking into it... otherwise, what's the point? So the LLM tells you there's a vulnerability in some part of the software, and you spend weeks trying to figure out how it works and how to fix it, only to conclude that it was never actually broken. How many times does that have to happen before people just stop taking the LLM's suggestions seriously? How much time and money are you willing to throw imaginary problems until you conclude it's not actually worth it?

> Now you're engaging in a regression chain

Not really, no. If an attacker is aware of a vulnerability and the LLM fails to find it for an extended period of time, that could give them clues as to what makes that vulnerability difficult for the LLM to identify, and therefore where they might look for new vulnerabilities or even how to craft new malware that exploits those same blindspots. Doesn't seem very far fetched.

And this is true regardless of how high the false positive rate is, because this is a false negative. Finding problems that aren't real, versus NOT finding problems that ARE real, are very different type of failures.
=Smidge=

Well, unless the attack uses more innocuous/common words or phrases, or multiple triggers.

Imagine how many LLMs would be rendered useless if the poison word was something like "Please."
=Smidge=

> It. is interesting that you find that a comparison of the two methods is of no relevance

it's not relevant because... it's not relevant. Two very different approaches (reducing solar insolation/increasing albedo through atmospheric seeding vs. carbon capture via remineralization) with very different technical implementations and very different consequences both good and bad.

The only way they are comparable is if your argument is "actions have consequences" in which case sure - medicines also have side effects but we still administer them because the risks usually are worth the benefits.

Maybe a little geoengineering is also worth the risk, given the alternative of doing nothing. (Side note: Even if we were to completely stop CO2 emissions today, we are already past the tipping point by several evaluations. Additional effort beyond reducing emissions is now absolutely necessary.)

  >a lot of people believe every quick fix and then when it fails or proves impossible, move on to the next big fix without some investigation into possible catastrophic side effects

This feels like a lot of projection on your part. You came in here with specific claims, and when confronted you don't even acknowledge them and are trying to move on pretending it never happened.

I haven't seen anyone say this is *the* solution, or "the next big thing" as if all previous ideas are invalid, or that there's been no investigation into possible side effects - the article is literally about the investigation.

So to recap:

Your objection is that it might it might make the soil more alkali. My response is the soil is already too acidic, and that they have been adjusting the soil pH using limestone for decades, and that making the soil more alkali is actually a benefit to this strategy. Do you have anything to say regarding your original objection?

Your objection is that silica dust may cause harm to local populations and wildlife. My response is that they acknowledge this risk and are targeting (relatively) low silica basalts which provide the best chemistry for the lowest risk. Do you have anything to say regarding your original objection?

Your objection is acidic rain may cause the carbonates to re-release captured carbon. My response is that the chemical reactions at play explicitly rely on the acidity of the rain to function, so decomposition of the carbonate forms is really only possible if the applied minerals are fully depleted. So the worst case here is the acid rain is neutralized and we end up net zero on carbon? Also, which do you think is worse in terms of acid rain interaction; the basalt minerals, or the limestone they are already using?

Your specific example is sodium carbonate, which you talked about at length. Please explain where the sodium is coming from.

Spare us all the handwaving and man up to the claims you've made.

> Consider if you will, the really big side effect. That attempting to utilize these fixes will permit the petrochemical industry to not only continue as normal, but to increase its emissions

Or not. Nobody not already trying to defend fossil fuels will be comfortable with letting them off the hook. Everyone understands that emission reduction is absolutely necessary, but so is carbon removal at this point.
=Smidge=

> Sulfur or hydrogen/chlorine aerosolization

That seems completely unrelated to the article. nobody is proposing aerosol anything here.

> Using huge tracts of land to purposely alkalinize the soil is going to create issues with the land and riverine environment and local ecology.

The huge tracts of land are already effectively ruined by agriculture; They are not proposing to do this over virgin plains or forests. The soil is already acidic, and historically they have been using limestone to increase the pH to make it suitable for crops, so some amount of alkalinity is actually desirable here. It's mentioned in the publication that they (paraphrasing) understand the impacts of adding some alkalinity to the soil, the target result is a more neutral pH, and they are aware of the consequences of over-applying it.

As far as pH management goes, it's unlikely to be any worse than the limestone they have already been working into the fields for decades.

> and silicosis being an ongoing threat for wildlife and nearby humans

This is also addressed in the report. They are specifically selecting basalt for the higher mineral:silica ratio and low toxic metal content which minimizes the risks.

> And in areas where acid rain is present, quick reactions can release the Carbon dioxide right back into the atmosphere

It's unclear where the carbon is coming from that's not already in the form of carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in rainwater). The entire process works because the acidic rain reacts with the minerals to produce stable carbon compounds, so it's not immediately clear how or why the sane acidic rain that the reaction relies on would undo that reaction. There is no appreciable amount sodium in the minerals being spread either, so I have no idea why you're mentioning sodium carbonate or where it's coming from.

> I reviewed the chemical process of that in another post.

Well, you addressed chemistry but I didn't see anything relevant to this situation. Maybe you should re-read the articles relevant to the topic and consider what parts of your arguments are and aren't applicable. (Hint: Sodium bicarbonate is not relevant.)
=Smidge=

> it creates more problems.

Such as?

=Smidge=

Arduino boards are a lot more powerful than the microcontrollers used in many commercial products. Hell, a lot of those super-ubiquitous 8-pin micros with no markings are like 2KB program ROM and 128 BYTES of RAM.

If you're complaining about only 32KB or RAM, you're either a shitty developer who's chosen the wrong tool for the job, or a shitty developer who can't optimize their code.
=Smidge=