> SMS contacts are just more contacts in my roster

Sorry for the question but i don't really understand what this means?

A SMS contact is just a regular XMPP address. They show up looking like this:

    +15555555555@cheogram.com

You would normally immediately add a nickname.

Shouldn't be trusted? They are a random swedish foundation. How is one going to change that? Or disallow it or what you want.

What does that prefix mean?

Nothing. It's Pegasus with the first two letters removed so they'd be at the top of the phone book when we used phone books way back in 1989.

Munzee but I'm unsure if you were being ironic.

A hacker news comment isn't a research paper. I scrolled past it after starting because of the AI tells. Organic communication will be hard soon.

I see nothing there?

I could have sworn we in Sweden used another word for rebuses and I was proven wrong many times in a pub discussion recently but I'm on a hunt for my word. (Very interesting I know...) If you don't mind what word did you use before for rebus? (I haven't given up there is an archaic or "brand name" out there I saw in my youth...)

Dingbat? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingbats_(board_game)

Dingbats! Thank you so much! I don't know why this was such a hard google! Legend! :)

So glad I could help :)

Honestly I don't think I ever had a specific word for that. It's not something I ever had cause to discuss.

Can you connect to it with a regular client?

yes, i use irssi to hold persistent sessions for all the twitch chats im in. doesn't require anything special beyond an oauth token sent as the server password

You could back in the early days (I did it), not sure today.

You still can, it's very useful for bots and game integrations because you just need an IRC lib in your language of choice. However, the servers aren't IRC anymore, they just have a compat shim that speaks IRC for those purposes.

Intent isn't some magic way to claim innocence. Here negligence is very much at play. Were OpenAI negligent when they made the NYT articles available like this?

Sure, but even negligence may be hard to show here.

It's very clear that OpenAI couldn't predict all of the ways users could interact with its model, as we quickly saw things like prompt discovery and prompt injections happening.

And so not only is it reasonable that OpenAI didn't know users would be able to retrieve snippets of training material verbatim, it's reasonable to say they weren't negligent in not knowing either. It's a new technology that wasn't meant to operate like that. It's not that different from a security vulnerability that quickly got patched once discovered.

Negligence is about not showing reasonable care. That's going to be very hard to prove.

And it's not like people started using ChatGPT as a replacement for the NYT. Even in a lawsuit over negligence, you have to show harm. I think the NYT will be hard pressed to show they lost a single subscriber.

Very interesting. Is this a global thing or national?