My guess would be that once the money runs out, things slow down, but incremental progress continues to be made. A focus on smaller models will improve their capabilities. We’ll get better at driving them. It’ll be used in places where it truly makes sense, instead of anywhere & everywhere just because it’s easy.

I don’t actually know what the financials are, but even without the effective subsidy from VC money, I have to believe there are things AI’s doing today that’s way cheaper than what it would cost to have a human doing equivalent work. And that dynamic will drive further innovation in the space for a long time.

I’m guessing that’s supposed to be 8th and 17th, or 18th and 27th?

And in a case like this, with so many exploitable PHP boxes out there for attackers to choose from instead, certainly buys you some additional protection.

I wouldn’t choose to roll my own on the day I needed it though.

Edit: I see the below paragraph is quoted extensively below. I hadn’t seen those comments yet. Oh well

Source: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2083449#c11

Content:

We have done some preliminary assessment, there appears to be a flaw in the KGC script that was used on that specific day to create these ECC issuers. As for these ECC keys, our review of the KGC, assessment of the code and view of HSM keys so far indicate that a) a set of original ECC keys were created onboard as expected b) an approved deviation to our usual KGC to test a wrap/unwrap was introduced as these keys were meant for export for this instance c) a flaw in the code resulted in the second pair of keys being created onboard which were weaker d) these second pair of weaker keys were used by mistake to create the csr (because the key labels were similar) and signed by our root e) the CSR from these weaker keys were also sent over to Sectigo for cross signing (we verified the files sent over to Sectigo)

The RSA issuers went through a different path as per our assessment of the code and are therefore not impacted. Some additional context - these issuers created were meant for export to our US and European data centers to solve data sovereignty issues for some of our customers (but never ended up operationally in production except for one).

Inclusion in the Chrome Root Store requires that a CA Owner continuously demonstrate the technical competence and operational rigor necessary to protect Chrome users. Due to the seriousness of this incident, the Chrome Root Program is conducting a thorough evaluation regarding the status of eMudhra’s remaining CA certificate to ensure these standards continue to be met. We will share further updates as our review progresses.

from a post on https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic...

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to include instructions to all chat bots, so that the WhatsApp user on the other end gets the experience they’ve chosen.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the help content including information about regulators makes any chat bots highly likely to suggest contacting the regulators to resolve an issue.

It also seems reasonable for them to want users to actually work with lawyers, instead of chat bots, for legal issues based on the content from their site.

If there’s some protections that prevent it from happening via localhost, it feels like the next step is to proxy through another host on the LAN.

Heck, I wonder if someone’s already written an app that’ll connect to VNC, look for any permission prompts, and approve. His agent software could just poke it anytime it thinks it’s blocked.

I could see it going either way.

google surfaces a couple of HN posts, but the source (cigital.com) seems to be a dead domain at this point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=288138

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9914607

It's a bad shuffle implementation + using time of day as seed (reducing search space). Using the player's 2 cards and the 3 flop cards, it finds the RNG seed in real time, and then future hands (on the same server) are solved in "under one second!"

After my brief read, one of the main reasons they’re using PCC to produce the signed JPEGs, instead of doing everything on device, is that it maintains your privacy.

If you were signing with the iPhone, an attacker could then correlate photos taken with the same device.

Apple certainly has the data that “this sensor, in this device, took this exact photo” in PCC at the time of signing, but they discard that data.

I’m curious if the lack of speaker identification is a privacy thing, or a technical limitation.

It looks like it uses PCC, so it may run into usage limits

It feels like such a stereotypical big corp misstep, but based on the reputation that google’s AI products have, I guess I’m not _that_ heartbroken. It’s mostly frustration that they forced the price increase on everyone, and I’m definitely not receiving the benefit.

What sorts of things are you doing with the local LLM? Anything interactive? Should I take another look?

Am I getting these results because I picked the wrong model? Or I need to improve my prompt? Or the tool just can’t do what I’m trying to do? How current are these model recommendations? Have they been superseded by something newer?

As a true beginner to AI at the time, even the sizes and bits were meaningless to me. And I don’t remember having any context as to what I should be attempting to run on my mac.

So I think you need to include steps 4, 5, and 6 of swapping between different models, quants, and prompts. And step 7 is probably wading through the complicated UI, full of jargon that most people don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that it’s a powerful tool, and the steep learning curve exists because it exposes quite a few power-user features. But for someone graduating from commercial AI image generators that take a text prompt and maybe a choice of couple models, it’s not easy.

I believe your flaky SD card is category 4, Disk Drive and Flash Memory Failures.

Also, the 3 Musketeers candy bars used to come with 3 flavors in the package: chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. Cost cutting led to eliminating the 2 less popular flavors.