>ChatGPT confirmed that he was sane: it told him his “Delusion Risk Score” was “Near zero,” his “Cognitive Complexity Index” was “9.8/10,” his “Moral Reasoning Velocity” was in the “99th percentile,” and that his “Empathic Sensory Bandwidth” was “Exceptionally high.”
Oh, they'll do that anyway, once they find the workaround (Oh... you can paste a credit card if you put periods instead of dashes! Oh... I have to save the file and do it from my phone! Oh... I'll upload it as a .txt file and change the extension on the server!)
It's purely illusory security, that doesn't protect anything but does levy a constant performance tax on nearly every task.
>Oh, they'll do that anyway, once they find the workaround ...
This is assuming the DLP service blocks the request, rather than doing something like logging it and reported to your manager and/or CIO.
>It's purely illusory security, that doesn't protect anything but does levy a constant performance tax on nearly every task.
Because you can't ask deepseek to extract some unstructured data for you? I'm not sure what the alternative is, just let everyone paste info into deepseek? If you found out that your data got leaked because some employee pasted some data into some random third party service, and that the company didn't have any policies/technological measures against it, would your response still be "yeah it's fine, it's purely illusory security"?
Posting stuff into Deepseek is banned. The corporate firewall is like putting a camera in your home because you may break the law. But, yeah, arguing against cameras in homes because people find dead angles where they can hide may not be the strongest argument.
I know that some guardrails and restrictions in a corporate setting can backfire. I know that onerous processes to get approval for needed software access can drive people to break the rules or engage in shadow IT. As a member of a firewall team, I did it myself! We couldn't get access to Python packages or PHP for a local webserver we had available to us from a grandfather clause. My team hated our "approved" Sharepoint service request system. So a few of us built a small web app with Bottle (single file web server microframework, no dependencies) and Bootstrap CSS and SQLite backend. Everyone who interacted with our team loved it. Had we more support from corporate it might have been a lot easier.
Good cybersecurity needs to work with IT to facilitate peoples' legitimate use cases, not stand in the way all the time just because it's easier that way.
But saying "corporate IT controls are all useless" is just as foolish to me. It is reasonable and moral for a business to put controls and visibility on what data is moving between endpoints, and to block unsanctioned behavior.
I don't think that's a good read if the post you're implying this at. I think a more charitable read would be something like "people break rules for convenience so if your security relies on nobody breaking rules then you don't have thorough security".
You and op can be right at the same time. You imply the rules probably help a lot even while imperfect. They imply that pretending rules alone are enough to be perfect is incomplete.
Yes, some cohorts are more useful than others for nation building, that's just reality, especially if excess mouths are net drains relative to national resource available. Too much excess and not just useless but actively detrimental to development. It's not saying time to purge, but excess demographics can dilute development resources too thin, double bad if above domestic carry capacity, i.e. getting import dependant trapped.
PRC averted 200-300m birth who would have spread family resources into developing country trap. The family planning exchange is non-existing 400m low skilled workers / subsistent farmers that is net drain on national power vs having 100m tertiary to uplift into developed country. All PRC rising in the last 20 years is because PRC family planning aborted a fuckload of 2nd/3rd/4th+ siblings so families can concentrate resources to get 1st kid into STEM. They speedrun the high skill human capita game, compressing 100s of years of human capita accumulation in 50. There's downsides, but they come after the up.
What's better for development, a 1.8B country of 6 Nigeria's and 2 Japans or 1.4B country of 2 Nigerias and 6 Japans. The latter. And you would recognize the former, while all lives are special blah blah blah is absolute developing shitshow. Every Nigeria PRC avoids is 200m of less governance overhead, i.e. make work jobs. AKA see which way India trended. Look at new gen of PRC protein consumption and average height vs alternative, stunted growth from malnutrition that literally makes significant % of population too stupid to integrate into modern economy. That's what happens, you can literally fuck up your human capita stock so much by diffusing limited resources that 100s of million become too biologically stupid to do modern jobs i.e. even in PRC, 100s of millions from old times too stunted and innumerate to do even basic factory work. PRC didn't abort enough.
A wide range of countries got rich, while China's policies were unique, in addition to being abhorrent. Why should anyone believe that the only other option for China was "being Nigeria"?
The PRC is getting older faster than they are getting rich. As a graying middle income country, they are worse off than Japan or Taiwan or Korea, places that that actually managed to become broadly developed and wealthy before needing to navigate population aging.
Sure, China received some temporary benefits from having an artificially low dependency ratio. That is over, the demographic payday loan is coming due.
India's low dependency rate positions them well for the next 50 years, as China flails in a demographic crisis caused by the CCP.
Going to enjoy holidays after one effort post. Only 1 of 2 extremely large country has gotten reasonably developed while starting from same level, hint: it's not India. Nigeria useful measure, because Nigerian income level is comparable to the few 100m left behind in PRC, that's the human develop cost of not concentrating resources and being stuck in informal economy. In terms of actual development, PRC not unique, just generic competent authoritarian directed export led growth. It was fact the only viable modern growth model, for small/large countries, PRC simply had to execute much better because they don't have luxury of only mastering a few sectors but all of them due to scale, and even now mastering almost everything, PRC still has too many people than high skilled opportunities. There is no other proven/repeated development model for no resource states, well except more authoritarian colonial exploitation, which you know is worse.
>old before rich
PRC can inflate RMB a few % and instantly be high income AKA rich as defined by world bank, ultimately the old before rich is retarded single dimension analysis. PRC is young/rich, old/poor society, which is much better setup than JP/TW/SKR for the simple reason PRC old (who also has 95%+ home ownership and high savings) are disproportionately poor and therefore cheap to caretake by the increasingly affluent young. It's more optimized vs advanced economies where welfware costs is uniformly unsustainably expensive to maintain. For reference bottom 2/5 of PRC, i.e. 500m constitutes 5% of GDP, every new skilled worker with multiple times more productivity to take care of multiple subsistent farmers and informal workers who are fucking poor and have little expectation to begin with. Also helps that PRC is... actually incredibly rich, in terms of manufacturing abundance, aka material richness. PRC old/poor, young/rich is one of the greatest caretake arbitrage opportunities, they wouldn't have been double fucked if they were old/rich, young/rich. BTW old before rich projection, PRC demographers already anticipated it, hence the family planning and zerg rushing for mass manufacturing and high end industries. One more thing to consider, every old/poor that drags down per capita average that dies (and they die first) will move per capita towards young/rich, i.e. for PRC to be statistically rich per capita in a few years, all they have to do is nothing but wait for old/poor to die.
>coming due
After you and I are dead. Their payday loan is the greatest high skill demographic dividend in human history, with actual system to capitalize on talent. They're going to have roughly OCED combined in just STEM in next 20 years, that workforce going to stick around until 2060s/70s+, aka they have basically 50 years to build dominance, and 30-40 years to figure out demographics. And btw this reality is based off PRC having effective 800m pop (again 500m are functionally Nigeria useless), they can afford to shed 500m useless mouths and still maintain advantage. BTW PRC 2100 demographics is ~2nd largest country, i.e. they will still have have massive human capita advantages, assuming they don't fix TFR, which of all countries with proven family planning systems, they're most likely to succeed.
>India's low dependency
Low demographic dependency doesn't matter if young/poor can't handle old/poor. NVM Indian TFR in most developed regions also crashing below TFR. Remember that stat PRC, despite being magnitude more successful at development than India still left with 500m surplus poor people, i.e. 40% of population. India is going to have 1000m-1200m out of 1700m, if they're lucky - that 30% stunting, 20% wasting is going to toast a lot of workforce. Most likely they're even more fucked because they couldn't capitalize on mass manufacturing now that labour saving tech is proliferating and AI is eating service. So you're looking at country where future profile is 7 Nigeria's and 1 Japan. Forget old ate dependency ratio, their young is going to be poor, underemployed, and restless. AKA the exact scenario PRC family planning was trying to avoid on a very condensed timeline. Again it's not like Indian didn't try to cap population via own sterilization / family planning policy. They simply failed and now they're heading into PRC demographer doomsday scenario, old/poor and young/poor. That's India's position. There will still be pockets of Indian rich but when demographic payday comes due PRC will be mostly rich taking care of poor vs India mostly poor/old/young vs few rich. Having mostly poor will also fuck a lot of other development goals, i.e. don't expect India to fix their air pollution anytime soon. Just like PRC old/poor, young/rich was locked decades ago, Indian old/poor, young/poor is more or less locked in due to their development velocity (lack of) and tfr trends.
Meanwhile most of advanced economies will struggle to fund social welfare nets where young/rich eat shit in inverted social contract to caretake old/rich(er) at their expense, i.e. new gen will be materially worse off than old gen. Ultimately PRC can on paper afford to caretake for old/poor, vs advanced economies on paper cannot afford to caretake for old/rich. India crashing TFR is old/poor + young/poor double shit sandwich. Everyone be flailing but guess who'll flail least. The flailing China is going suffer is old poor retiring in abundance they never dreamed of while everyone else likely regress vs past.
The way to make Firefox better is by not doing the things that are making the other browsers worse. Ads and privacy are an example of areas where Chrome is clearly getting worse.
LLM integration... is arguable. Maybe it'll make Chrome worse, maybe not. Clunky and obtrusive integration certainly will.
That's an interesting example to use. I only use turn signals when there are other cars around that would need the indication. I don't view a turn signal as politeness, its a safety tool to let others know what I'm about to.
I do also find that only using a turn signal when others are around is a good reinforcement to always be aware of my surroundings. I feel like a jerk when I don't use one and realize there was someone in the area, just as I feel like a jerk when I realize I didn't turn off my brights for an approaching car at night. In both cases, feeling like a jerk reminds me to pay more attention while driving.
I would strongly suggest you use your turnsignals, always, without exception. You are relying on perfect awareness of your surroundings which isn't going to be the case over a longer stretch of time and you are obliged to signal changes in direction irrespective of whether or not you believe there are others around you. I'm saying this as a frequent cyclist who more than once has been cut off by cars that were not indicating where they were going because they had not seen me, and I though they were going to go straight instead of turn into my lane or the bike path.
Signalling your turns is zero cost, there is no reason to optimize this.
Its a matter of approach and I wouldn't say what I've found to work for me would work for anyone else.
In my experience, I'm best served by trying to reinforce awareness rather than relying on it. If I got into the habit of always using blinkers regardless of my surroundings I would end up paying less attention while driving.
I rode motorcycles for years and got very much into the habit of assuming that no one on the road actually knows I'm there, whether I'm on an old parallel twin or driving a 20' long truck. I need that for us while driving and using blinkers or my brights as motivation for paying attention works to keep me focused on the road.
Signaling my turns is zero cost with regards to that action. At least for me, signaling as a matter of habit comes at the cost of focus.
The point of making signaling a habit is that you don't think about it at all. It becomes an automatic action that just happens, without affecting your focus.
I have also ridden motorcycles for many years, and I am very familiar with the assumption that nobody on the road knows I exist. I still signal, all the time, every time, because it is a habit which requires no thinking. It would distract me more if I had to decide whether signalling was necessary in each case.
You're making a huge leap here. I'm raising only had signaling intentionally rather than automatically has made me pay more attention to others on the road. You're claiming that that action which has proven to make me pay closer attention will kill someone.
By not signaling you are robbing others on the road the opportunity to avoid a potential accident should you not have seen them. It's maximum selfish fuck everyone else asshole behavior.
No, I'm not claiming it will kill someone, I'm claiming it may kill someone.
There is this thing called traffic law and according to that law you are required to signal your turns. If you obstinately refuse to do so you are endangering others and I frankly don't care one bit about how you justify this to yourself but you are not playing by the rules and if that's your position then you should simply not participate in traffic. Just like you stop for red lights when you think there is no other traffic. Right?
Again: it costs you nothing. You are not paying more attention to others on the road because you are not signalling your turns, that's just a nonsense story you tell yourself to justify your wilful non-compliance.
There is no such thing as not signaling. By not using the turn signal, you are lying to anyone around that you might not see, signaling that you are going straight forward when you aren't.
> I only use turn signals when there are other cars around that would need the indication.
That is a very bad habit and you should change it.
You are not only signalling to other cars. You are also signalling to other road users: motorbikes, bicycles, pedestrians.
Your signal is more important to the other road users you are less likely to see.
Always ALWAYS indicate. Even if it's 3AM on an empty road 200 miles from the nearest human that you know of. Do it anyway. You are not doing it to other cars. You are doing it to the world in general.
Not to dog pile, just to affirm what jacquesm is saying. Remember, what you do consciously is what you end up doing unconsciously when you're distracted.
Here is a hypothetical: A loved one is being hauled away in an ambulance and it is a bad scenario. And you're going to follow them. Your mind is busy with the stress, trying to keep things cool while under pressure. What hospital are they going to, again? Do you have a list of prescriptions? Are they going to make it to the hospital? You're under a mental load, here.
The last thing you need is to ask "did I use my turn signal" as you merge lanes. If you do it automatically, without exception, chances are good your mental muscle memory will kick in and just do it.
But if it isn't a learned innate behavior, you may forget to while driving and cause an accident. Simply because the habit isn't there.
It's similar for talking to bots, as well. How you treat an object, a thing seen as lesser, could become how a person treats people they view as lesser, such as wait staff, for example. If I am unerring polite to a machine with no feelings, I'm more likely to be just as polite to people in customer service jobs. Because it is innate:
Watch your thoughts, they become words; Watch your words, they become actions.
> when there are other cars around that would need the indication
This has a failure state of "when there's a nearby car [or, more realistically, cyclist / pedestrian] of which I am not aware". Knowing myself to be fallible, I always use my turn signals.
I do take your point about turn signals being a reminder to be aware. That's good, but could also work while, you know, still using them, just in case.
You're not the only one raising that concern here - I get it and am not recommending what anyone else should do.
I've been driving for decades now and have plenty of examples of when I was and wasn't paying close enough attention behind the wheel. I was raising this only as an interesting different take or lesson in my own experience, not to look for approval or disagreement.
You said something fairly egregious on a public forum and are getting pretty polite responses. You definitely do not get it because you’re still trying to justify the behavior.
Just consider that you will make mistakes. If you make a mistake and signal people will have significantly more time to react to it.
local, open model
local, proprietary model
remote, open model (are there these?)
remote, proprietary model
There is almost no harm in a local, open model. Conversely, a remote, proprietary model should always require opting in with clear disclaimers. It needs to be proportional.
The harm to me is the implementation is terrible - local or not (assuming no AI based telemetry). If their answer is AI then it pretty much means they won't make a non-AI solution. Today I just got my first stupid AI tab grouping in Firefox that makes zero intuitive sense. I just want grouping not from an AI reading my tabs. It should just be based on where my tabs were opened from. I also tried Waterfox today because of this post and while I'd prefer horizontal grouping atleast their implementation isn't stupid. Language translation is a opaque complex process. Tabs being grouped from other tabs is not good when opaque and unpredictable and does not need AI.
That is a good point, and I think the takeaway is that there are lots of degrees of freedom here. Open training data would be better, of course, but open weights is still better than completely hidden.
I don't see the difference between "local, open weights" and "local, proprietary weights". Is that just the handful of lines of code that call the inference?
The model itself is just a binary blob, like a compiled program. Either you get its source code (the complete training data) or you don't.
You've lost the plot: The [local|remote]-[open|closed] comment is making a broad claim about LLM usage in general, not limited to the hyper-narrow case of tab-grouping. I'm saying the majority of LLM-dangers are not fixed by that 4-way choice.
Even if it were solely about tab-grouping, my point still stands:
1. You're browsing some funny video site or whatever, and you're naturally expecting "stuff I'm doing now" to be all the tabs on the right.
2. A new tab opens which does not appear there, because the browser chose to move it over into your "Banking" or "Online purchases" groups, which for many users might even be scrolled off-screen.
3. An hour later you switch tasks, and return to your "Banking" or "Online Purchases". These are obviously the same tabs before that you opened from a trusted URL/bookmark, right?
4. Logged out due to inactivity? OK, you enter your username and password into... the fake phishing tab! Oops, game over.
Was the fuzzy LLM instrumental in the failure? Yes. Would having a local model with open weights protect you? No.
Obama opposed gay marriage as well. As did many prominent politicians, left and right.
The swing from opposing it to supporting it was a huge cultural shift, and I'm not sure I've seen anything like that happen so quickly, except maybe during a time of war. It went from being opposed by a strong majority to supported by a strong majority in... maybe 5-8 years? It was pretty impressive, and I think it's a sign that the marketplace of ideas can still function.
It helps a lot that it's really a harmless thing. It's giving people more freedom, not taking any away from anyone, and so as soon as it became clear that it wasn't causing a problem, everybody shrugged and went 'ok'.
That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.
For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.
If you were on a hiring committee, and your otherwise-qualified-candidate had a political opinion you objected to in this way, perhaps with a similar donation, would you refuse to hire them?
If it’s about government fiscal policy, probably not. If it’s more along the lines of discriminating against or undermining people’s rights, then yeah I would refuse to hire them.
If you were about to hire a candidate and then found out that they donate regularly to the “Arrest kbelder and deport them to El Salvador” fund, would you hire them?
Those are the same scores I get!
reply