Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What? [does it profit the fool?] (Score 1) 176

by shanen (#65454119) Attached to: Trump Organization Announces Mobile Plan, $499 Smartphone

Sure it's legal. Just read about it in the newspaper. You still subscribe to a newspaper, right?

No dead tree? Okay, so look it up on your smartphone. Oh wait. You don't have the right smartphone. Yet.

I would like to see some historical research correlating mentions of national leaders with various job-related metrics and divided up by geography.

Easy example: Little Kim gets LOTS of extremely favorable public mentions in North Korea. From near zero to HUGE in a few days (when he became established as the successor)--and at some point his mentions will approach zero again. But outside of North Korea? Not so many and not so favorable. Ever.

The YOB case is (relatively) interesting because he had quite a lot of name recognition even before 2015. Media and even book references that still surprise me. Like ghosts from the past? (To be compared with books written before and after perpetual September? Circa 1995?)

Comment Re:So [Captain obvious is calling] (Score 1) 27

by shanen (#65454057) Attached to: That 'Unsubscribe' Button Could Be a Trap, Researchers Warn

My reaction to the story was "Tell us something we didn't know." News is supposed to have some element of novelty in it. You know, novelty as in new.

However, I think the phishing scams disguised as fake upgrades are more annoying, and probably more dangerous, since the sucker is primed to expect something to get installed. As regards this story I thought there might be an element of novelty in it. Perhaps a new scammer's pitch to enter your credit card number to validate the unsubscribe request? Something along those lines.

Solutions time? Why do I persist in hoping the direction of criminal change in the Web can be shifted?

I keep imagining a website that helps potential suckers aggregate the targeting data so the scammers can be found and stopped more quickly. Hopefully definitively, too, as in throw them into that lovely prison in El Salvador. Get some good out of it?

So now to flog that dead horse!

The basic idea would be an iterative website where you would paste the scam and then help parse the meaning to guide the response. Of course these days it would be enhanced with AI, but the key idea is that each iteration would clarify what is going on and what should be done about it. Per this specific story, that so-called unsubscribe link would be studied to see how malicious it is and the human being in the loop would confirm the threat or provide feedback about what the website got wrong. And of course the website would be amalgamating the results to provide stats that guide the prioritization of the responses. A dangerous new threat that is producing lots of reports needs to be dealt with ASAP, though I doubt the "new threat" of this story would merit much priority.

More details available if someone is interested. NOT a new idea. Or let's hear your better solution approach. I'm sure you have a big wad of better ideas stuffed in a pocket somewhere.

(But actually my primary focus right now was provoked by that awful book Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie... Linkage is complicated, but now I want to see some exploratory research on how much and in what ways each nation's top leader is mentioned in the media over time. Easy example: Little Kim of North Korea. LOTS of favorable coverage inside and not much mention outside, with what there is being not so favorable. Any leads?)

Comment How many websites are the AI spiders killing? (Score 1) 57

by shanen (#65449735) Attached to: Increased Traffic from Web-Scraping AI Bots is Hard to Monetize

Kind of a new Slashdot effect? I think I'm actually seeing some evidence of higher than usual mortality among old websites and I've been wondering if the cause might be AI spiders seeking more training data. Latest victim might be Tripod? But that one was already a ghost zombie website...

Submission + - WW III is not news yet? No effect on tech? (bbc.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Really surprised not to see any mention of this little development, but maybe everyone is afraid of being accused of antisemitism? Even if I'm "of Jewish descent"? That's how my father used to put it after being raised Orthodox and then losing his religion (all long before I was born). So this is a time for the anonymous option, though I don't think it means much on Slashdot.

My take? Whether or not this attack on Iran escalates into WW III mostly depends on Putin and Xi and whatever secret signals they are sending to Iran. Iran already has plenty of capacity to escalate, and Israel is already a ripe target for dirty bombs... Doesn't even matter if such a drone with uranium gets all the way to its target. This is one of those cases like horseshoes where close counts. Okay, so I don't think [the inscrutable? ;-) ] Xi wants any big wars anywhere, but Putin might be getting desperate and he knows he cannot retire peacefully to one of his dachas.

I've never lived in a predominantly Jewish community, though I have enough exposure to religious communities to know that I don't like them--and I think that's most of the problem with Iran. Probably Israel, too. But I have made a number of Jewish friends and I still remember what one of them said after he spent a couple of years in Israel: "There's such a thing as too many Jews in one place." Sometimes funny isn't.
Security

A Researcher Figured Out How To Reveal Any Phone Number Linked To a Google Account (wired.com) 17

Posted by msmash from the security-woes dept.
A cybersecurity researcher was able to figure out the phone number linked to any Google account, information that is usually not public and is often sensitive, according to the researcher, Google, and 404 Media's own tests. From a report: The issue has since been fixed but at the time presented a privacy issue in which even hackers with relatively few resources could have brute forced their way to peoples' personal information. "I think this exploit is pretty bad since it's basically a gold mine for SIM swappers," the independent security researcher who found the issue, who goes by the handle brutecat, wrote in an email.

[...] In mid-April, we provided brutecat with one of our personal Gmail addresses in order to test the vulnerability. About six hours later, brutecat replied with the correct and full phone number linked to that account. "Essentially, it's bruting the number," brutecat said of their process. Brute forcing is when a hacker rapidly tries different combinations of digits or characters until finding the ones they're after. Typically that's in the context of finding someone's password, but here brutecat is doing something similar to determine a Google user's phone number.

Brutecat said in an email the brute forcing takes around one hour for a U.S. number, or 8 minutes for a UK one. For other countries, it can take less than a minute, they said. In an accompanying video demonstrating the exploit, brutecat explains an attacker needs the target's Google display name. They find this by first transferring ownership of a document from Google's Looker Studio product to the target, the video says. They say they modified the document's name to be millions of characters, which ends up with the target not being notified of the ownership switch. Using some custom code, which they detailed in their write up, brutecat then barrages Google with guesses of the phone number until getting a hit.
AI

'AI Is Not Intelligent': The Atlantic Criticizes 'Scam' Underlying the AI Industry (msn.com) 205

Posted by EditorDavid from the machine-language dept.
The Atlantic makes that case that "the foundation of the AI industry is a scam" and that AI "is not what its developers are selling it as: a new class of thinking — and, soon, feeling — machines." [OpenAI CEO Sam] Altman brags about ChatGPT-4.5's improved "emotional intelligence," which he says makes users feel like they're "talking to a thoughtful person." Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI company Anthropic, argued last year that the next generation of artificial intelligence will be "smarter than a Nobel Prize winner." Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google's DeepMind, said the goal is to create "models that are able to understand the world around us." These statements betray a conceptual error: Large language models do not, cannot, and will not "understand" anything at all. They are not emotionally intelligent or smart in any meaningful or recognizably human sense of the word. LLMs are impressive probability gadgets that have been fed nearly the entire internet, and produce writing not by thinking but by making statistically informed guesses about which lexical item is likely to follow another.
A sociologist and linguist even teamed up for a new book called The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want, the article points out: The authors observe that large language models take advantage of the brain's tendency to associate language with thinking: "We encounter text that looks just like something a person might have said and reflexively interpret it, through our usual process of imagining a mind behind the text. But there is no mind there, and we need to be conscientious to let go of that imaginary mind we have constructed."

Several other AI-related social problems, also springing from human misunderstanding of the technology, are looming. The uses of AI that Silicon Valley seems most eager to promote center on replacing human relationships with digital proxies. Consider the ever-expanding universe of AI therapists and AI-therapy adherents, who declare that "ChatGPT is my therapist — it's more qualified than any human could be." Witness, too, how seamlessly Mark Zuckerberg went from selling the idea that Facebook would lead to a flourishing of human friendship to, now, selling the notion that Meta will provide you with AI friends to replace the human pals you have lost in our alienated social-media age....

The good news is that nothing about this is inevitable: According to a study released in April by the Pew Research Center, although 56 percent of "AI experts" think artificial intelligence will make the United States better, only 17 percent of American adults think so. If many Americans don't quite understand how artificial "intelligence" works, they also certainly don't trust it. This suspicion, no doubt provoked by recent examples of Silicon Valley con artistry, is something to build on.... If people understand what large language models are and are not; what they can and cannot do; what work, interactions, and parts of life they should — and should not — replace, they may be spared its worst consequences.

Comment Re:Why was this headline red? (Score 1) 33

by shanen (#65436793) Attached to: Caffeine Has a Weird Effect On Your Brain While You're Asleep

Is that a joke based on reading the article? You should know that never happens around here... Or maybe not, looking at the UID.

However the story has big potential for funny, so I'll check for details at 11.

Anecdotal evidence: In my dotage I often take a morning nap and it doesn't seem to affect me whether or not I drink coffee with breakfast. But I may have some kind of REM sleep disorder...

Comment Re:The question is... [in reverso world] (Score 1) 361

Basically the ACK with at least some concurrence, but I wonder (again) how long this discussion might have gone on if Slashdot allowed for persistent topics. Some topics are fundamentally too deep to discuss meaningfully in a the standard time unit of Slashdot. (Basically one day until it falls off the front page.)
Biotech

'We Finally May Be Able to Rid the World of Mosquitoes. But Should We?' (yahoo.com) 153

Posted by EditorDavid from the creating-a-buzz dept.
It's no longer a hypothetical question, writes the Washington Post. "In recent years, scientists have devised powerful genetic tools that may be able to eradicate mosquitoes and other pests once and for all."

But along with the ability to fight malaria, dengue, West Nile virus and other serious diseases, "the development of this technology also raises a profound ethical question: When, if ever, is it okay to intentionally drive a species out of existence...?" When so many wildlife conservationists are trying to save plants and animals from disappearing, the mosquito is one of the few creatures that people argue is actually worthy of extinction. Forget about tigers or bears; it's the tiny mosquito that is the deadliest animal on Earth. The human misery caused by malaria is undeniable. Nearly 600,000 people died of the disease in 2023, according to the World Health Organization, with the majority of cases in Africa... But recently, the Hastings Center for Bioethics, a research institute in New York, and Arizona State University brought together a group of bioethicists to discuss the potential pitfalls of intentionally trying to drive a species to extinction. In a policy paper published in the journal Science last month, the group concluded that "deliberate full extinction might occasionally be acceptable, but only extremely rarely..."

It's unclear how important malaria-carrying mosquitoes are to broader ecosystems. Little research has been done to figure out whether frogs or other animals that eat the insects would be able to find their meals elsewhere. Scientists are hotly debating whether a broader "insect apocalypse" is underway in many parts of the world, which may imperil other creatures that depend on them for food and pollination... Instead, the authors said, geneticists should be able to use gene editing, vaccines and other tools to target not the mosquito itself, but the single-celled Plasmodium parasite that is responsible for malaria. That invisible microorganism — which a mosquito transfers from its saliva to a person's blood when it bites — is the real culprit.
A nonprofit research consortium called Target Malaria has genetically modified mosquitoes in their labs (which get core funding from the Gates Foundation and from Open Philanthropy, backed by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife). ), and hopes to deploy them in the wild within five years...

Slashdot Top Deals

Backed up the system lately?

Close