Alt. Profile @Th4tGuyII
Microsoft got the grift of a century. Make Win11 so bad that people will literally pay you NOT to force them onto it! /s
Seriously though, fuck Microsoft - $30 per year to roll out the occasional security update is obscene! They can go stuff themselves with their $3 trillion market cap
There’s a really good article on Rentry.co for setting up Win10 LTSC. Though as you say, here’s not the place for that.
IMO this year has actually felt comparatively longer than the last few since the C-19 lockdowns started. I actually feel like I’m late into the year, rather than having just blinked it away.
Of all the things to target, did they really have to go for the IA - the organisation that literally got into trouble with the man for helping children get access to books during the pandemic.
Does this hacker kick puppies and steal sweets from babies too?
Exactly this. It’s a completely arbitrary rug-pull made especially repugnant by the fact you can circumvent it quite easily with basically no loss of functionality.
While modding Win11 is a perfectly legit option for home users, it’s not for businesses - as such many, many business-spec computers will be “obsolete” once security updates for Win10 end.
Best you can hope for is that these computers pour into liquidation markets giving people the chance to buy decent quality PCs for cheap - but more likely they’ll become e-waste
Xitter might as well call it the “Maybes and Conditions” with how much they cherrypick their T&Cs nowadays
What?? But the FBI called dibs on that backdoor! /s
It’s almost like putting backdoors into software as a whole is a bad idea cause anyone who knows of it can use it, not just “tHe GoOd GuYs”
At that point I’d just backup my data and do a fresh install - would probably take less time too
If you put that in the mirror it’s kinda true, except that it’s also on a Thursday this year haha
Man, my brother is the worst for this. Has multiple pairs of headphones, usually at least one on his person, and STILL will blast his Instagram reel on speaker as if everyone around him wants to hear his doomscrolling and brainrot memes
Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it…
But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it’s bow.
Governments don’t seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the time the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be long done already.
Possibly Newgrounds, I used to lurk around there a lot when I was younger
To jump on the bandwagon, OP’s showing their age. I can’t remember where I first saw Badger Badger, but it was definitely pre-Youtube (or at least mainstream Youtube) when Flash was all the rage
I thought Earth was Neapolitan style, but it was Chicago deep dish the whole time! If only I’d have known earlier!
So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn’t either.
I didn’t mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that, built upon it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.
It’s like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for an illegal act - you wouldn’t go after the person who made the unmodified version.
SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.
Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.
Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. […] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.
In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that…
But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?
One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can’t be done then demanding they not be held liable.
Win11 becomes a less and less appealing switch day by day… When I can no longer hold into Win10, I think I’ll just have to jump ship to Linux.
Win10 is already quite privacy poor, but Win11 is straight up intolerable.
Well I suppose the answer I’d give is that because of how right-wing the US is compared to much of the Western world, it becomes a patient zero for whatever the far-right is cooking up - which inevitably influences far-right groups in other Western countries
With how much time these “macho” conservatives spend thinking about gay people, even when marrying their own wives, it sure does seem like they’re hiding something
I don’t blame people in the US for believing that, when more than half your population (who actually voted) decided to vote Trump in (again).
Like the guy is unironically a treasonous criminal con-man so obviously under Russia’s (or more specifically Putin’s) influence it’s laughable.