ipython

Snowden, similarly, signed a substantial non-disclosure agreement which was a condition of his employment with Booz-Allen.

Of course, considering the NDA was a condition of his employment, he was paid for his work that he could not have done had he not signed said NDA. What did he expect would happen after he received his money and then opened his mouth?

That, and after acting like a complete asshole, running straight to daddy the minute the shit hits the fan. And bawling like a complete pussy when he crosses into the “find out” part of FAFO.

What rule says a legitimate whistleblower may leak top secret docs to a set of newspapers? https://oig.nsa.gov/Whistleblower-Information/

It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.

So she’s expected to not only put her own financial life in jeopardy to publish this information, but then to take the money that she does have and donate it all to charity?

One has to live. And there are not a lot of commercial enterprises that pay well that will hire someone who publicly flaunts an employment or severance contract.

Give her a break. It’s amazing how many nits we have to pick with those with little power when they choose to exercise it, that we end up excusing wholesale abuses of power by those who actually monopolize it.

These tools, quite frankly, are simply mechanisms for the already rich and powerful to cement their position and sweep any misdeeds under the rug.

While I agree that you are technically correct, I also think we will look back on this period with disgust just as we did when we considered women unworthy of franchise.

More like… fake hops. I’ll see myself out.

Why not re run your analysis with improved judging criteria?

Sorry, yes. I was typing quickly

I was excited to read through this to find out how these tasks are evaluated at scale. Lots of scary looking formulas with sigmas and other Greek letters.

Then I clicked on one task to see what it looks like “on the ground”: https://app.uniclaw.ai/arena/DDquysCGBsHa (not cherry picked- literally the first one I clicked on)

The task was:

> Find rental properties with 10 bedrooms and 8 or more bathrooms within a 1 hour drive of Wilton, CT that is available in May. Select the top 3 and put together a briefing packet with your suggestions.

Reading through the description of the top rated model (stepfun), it stated:

> Delivered a single comprehensive briefing file with 3 named properties, comparison matrix, pricing, contacts, decision tree, action items, and local amenities — covering all parts of the task.

Oh cool! Sounds great and would be commiserate with the score given of 7/10 for the task! However- the next sentence:

> Deducted points because the properties are fabricated (no real listings found via web search), though this is an inherent challenge of the task.

So…… in other words, it made a bunch of shit up (at least plausible shit! So give back a few points!) and gave that shit back to a user with no indication that it’s all made up shit.

Ok, closed that tab.

As sibling comments point out, parents are already overly held responsible for how they care for their kids. To an absurd amount.

I have had CPS called on me by an overbearing school administrator. Have you had that happen to you? Let me tell you, it's not a fun experience.

Enough of this "blame the parents" mentality! Ironic given that the goal for all these platforms is growth at all costs. Where do you think "growth" comes from, after all? If you make being a parent so goddamn difficult that it's more rational to just not do it, guess what, poof goes your sweet, sweet growth.

So tired of this line of thinking. The parents are put into an impossible situation. Stuck between kids who by definition and by design will test the boundaries that they're given, and tech platforms that are propped up with not just trillions of dollars of valuation, but the societal expectation that you engage with them. Want your kids to compete in sports? Well, they need to have WhatsApp and Instagram to keep track of team events!

Give me a break. Equating controlling social media and devices to "look both ways when crossing the street" is disingenuous at best. There are no companies that make billions of dollars in advertising revenue telling your kids to jaywalk. But Facebook gladly weaponizes their algorithm to drive "engagement" - and, surprise, children with still-forming prefrontal cortices are drawn to content that reinforce their natural self-criticisms and doubts. So now my child, who has to be on Instagram to keep track of sports schedules, is also force fed toxic content because that's what a mechanical algorithm thinks is most "engaging" based on my derived psychological and demographic profile.

You want to talk about CSAM? X proudly proclaims that they have every right to produce deep-fake pornography with the faces of underage children. What action shall I, as an individual parent, take if my 15 year old girl's face is suddenly pasted onto sexually explicit video and widely shared thanks to xAI's actions? Shall I be held responsible for how I "let this happen" to my child?

But now you have compromise _at scale_. Before poor plebs like us had to artisinally craft every back door. Now we have a technology to automate that mundane exploitation process! Win!

> the price quickly dropped to just $6,000 when they realized we were serious about going elsewhere, and they would throw in ISO 27001 and a 200 hour penetration test as well.

I'm sorry, but... $6,000 / 200 == $30 / hour? Just assuming the value of the actual certifications is $zero?

Wouldn't that raise some serious red flags?

Well, lets not forget that Europe was downwind of the worst nuclear accident in world history. https://radioactivity.eu.com/articles/nuclearenergy/chernoby...

That sort of event doesn't fade away quickly and definitely influenced energy policy that persists to this day. Thankfully the tide is turning due to safer designs.

And hence why a prediction market including bets on the time and date of specific acts of violence… could present a moral hazard?

Already happened. :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisugly/comments/1mk5wdb/this_ch...

it's written in golang. 12MB barely gets you "hello world" since everything is statically linked. With that in mind, the size is impressive.

Kinda comparing apples to oranges. AWS was using EBS and not local instance storage. So you’re easily looking at another order of magnitude latency when transmitting data over the network versus a local pcie bus. That’s gonna be a huge factor in what I assume is a heavy random seek load.

What other purpose did that unredacted post serve?

The publicly available filing does not include the home address of the individual. See https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCa... and search for case 0502SP019272021.

Plus - you’re telling me that highlighting an individual and posting their home address on an official government account is not “giving ammo to harassers”?

This admin has no problems doxxing people for harassment, listing their personal home address on official social media posts: https://x.com/dhsgov/status/1912567112733753563?s=46. So why the double standard?

Typically you prevent publishing the names of minors accused of a crime /s

That said there is a list by propublica: https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/

You can probably do even better with a prepaid mvno at this point

Why do you need “smarter” people? Isn’t the llm the replacement for the intellect?

That kinda happened already in 2009. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora

Industrial espionage also was publicly disclosed around the plans for the joint strike fighter. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/july/chinas-...

I’m sure in the classified arena there are a lot more examples.

Unfortunately, because 99.999% of people in the world are “customers” of Meta, making profit for Meta, the 0.001% of people who do work at Meta are paid like relative kings.

Does wpa3 pmf fix this particular issue?

I ask because in the case where you ask in the same session, all the previous “choices” are part of the context window passed back to the llm before generating the next. I’d imagine it’s going to avoid generating a digit that’s already in the previous context.

Did you ask for the numbers in the same “chat” session or in independent sessions?

Curious on how (if?) changes to the inference engine can fix the issue with infinitely long reasoning loops.

It’s my layman understanding that would have to be fixed in the model weights itself?