> Abliterated models gave proper responses.
Is that a word now? I thought it was ablated.
21,749 karma · joined October 15, 2012
Is that a word now? I thought it was ablated.
You really think this is an apt comparison? I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.
> I was aware of that and mention it
I'm confused.
That should really be an error.
This goes against everything I've ever been told about antimatter. So a positron and electron can collide and not annihilate each other? How does that work? What happens to them in that case, and why does everybody say otherwise?
Images being replaced with a missing image icon doesn't seem like a lot according to the description, and it's what you would set by default?
Isn't this the exact opposite of what "formal verification" means? First sentence on Wikipedia [1]: "Formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property."
I'm not quite understanding this. What is there to be gained by raising the stakes? Doesn't it make defendants even more determined to seek justice?
Last I checked, white hat security researchers weren't making their livings selling superhuman hacking tools to unknown entities as part of ~$1T businesses desperate to offload their shares onto the public before a potential bubble pop.
If you want to argue what they're doing is fine regardless, be my guest, but using this comparison as the justification is a little ridiculous.
Note I want it to work with the backports too, not just the latest version.
You got me curious... what kind of parties do you go to where everyone trusts everyone else with filming and the privacy around it, but the host doesn't trust guests to return the glasses?
Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but regarding this tangent: haven't there been a ton of (say) "AI" companies that quietly used humans in the background and gave the impression AI was doing the work, because their vision was that that was the future?
Not that I think that would excuse this case in any way regardless - just mentioning because of the drawn comparison.
I imagine for a lot of positions this is true, but surely not every position is like this? Like say, at an HFT firm/hedge fund/etc. -- if you can make people ridiculous amounts of money, they'd be insane to turn you away just because you're socially inept. They would just give you a room to do your thing solo and make everyone rich, no?
Note, obviously I was not attempting to detail a cryptographic voting system here. My only point was that I don't see what you said as being obviously true, if it is true at all. For the purposes of that point, even an incorrect scheme that isn't trivially disprovable would prove my point.
That said, to answer your question as I think through the details right now...
- Authorities preassign N-digit primes to everybody, one per option on the ballot.
- Find a way to validate the total number of ballots cast in the election. (Assume for simplicity that every question has exactly one answer selected.) Exercise for the reader on how to do this; this ought to be easy. This is important to know how many digits to expect in the product(s).
- You "vote" by submitting the primes corresponding to the option you select, one per question.
- Authorities announce the products of primes corresponding to each option.
- If your prime isn't included in the product, then it's obviously trivial to prove it... you just reveal your number and show the result fails divisibility.
- If they included extra fake primes, then this is harder to prove, but I think you can catch this by looking at how many digits are in the result. I think you can make the error margin arbitrarily sharp by making all the primes lead with 10000000000..., for example, adding however many zeros you need to make sure a single fake number adds a detectable number of digits to the product.
This is just a sketch; fix & fill in details as appropriate. The biggest flaw I see right now is that it's susceptible to whatever eventual algorithm (quantum or otherwise) ends up breaking factoring and leaking everyone's votes. But otherwise, it sounds plausible to me, and there's probably another trapdoor function that can mitigate that better. And as mentioned initially, if you can't easily prove it's impossible to make it work, that's sufficient for my point, even if it is in fact wrong.
Anyway, even in that case, I can't make sense of this logic. You're expecting people to condone cruelty on their own front porches in the city that their government has full jurisdiction over until they tackle the cruelty of industrial agriculture in other jurisdictions? I guess they can't tackle homelessness in their neighborhood either until they feed and shelter the children in Africa? Otherwise they're hypocrites?
I might be missing something obvious but I'm not quite seeing the logical inconsistency between their two goals. Note they're only asking to verify their own vote, not to verify every other person's vote. For that, isn't it enough for authorities to announce a product of large primes, letting each person verify that their own prime was in the set? At each stage, the machines only report the product of primes up the chain, not the individual ones.
It seems to me the difficulty is with the fact that we have so many places to hide malicious things with modern technology (tiny electronics, firmware, etc.), not a logical incompatibility between the goals. If you had some sort of abacus that did all this mechanically without reprogrammability... or a large computer whose logic was fully verifiable... then everyone could inspect the machine and verify that it behaves correctly prior to elections, and e.g. a camera/observers/etc. can ensure no tampering occurred with the machine until the tallies were conducted.
Would you seriously have the heart to, say, kick, injure, and torture a calf or lamb that you know was heading for slaughter and was going to end up on your plate?
Do you also fail to see why people ban torture despite still permitting killing in circumstances like capital punishment or war or self-defense or whatever? Would you be okay with getting tortured during your life if you were sentenced to death?
Just because society blessed your excuse to kill a living being, that doesn't make it strange or illogical to oppose your cruelty or their torture during their life. I'm not even taking a position here; this is so obviously not hard to comprehend. If you're looking to point out hypocrisy, this is not an example of it.
The terminology I've seen people use for FIFO instead is enqueue() and dequeue(). Or push_front(), pop_back(). Etc.