Gaywallet

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

I’ve given you a 7 day temporary ban to reflect on how you might better engage with the community in the future. Bee better

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

This boy is purposefully being misleading about himself - he is presenting a con. We shouldn’t be victim blaming.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

I think it’s completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don’t think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn’t be blaming them at all.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be “so shallow” to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying “she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed” to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It’s not as one dimensional as you’re painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That’s abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

We cannot possibly know her intentions. We do know his intentions. Please stop shifting focus away from the person actively causing harm here.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice

I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.

everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone

We don’t know this, and we shouldn’t assume this of the victim. I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it’s kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I’m not so certain it’s a discussion that should even be entertained.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

I can’t help but wonder how in the long term deep fakes are going to change society. I’ve seen this article making the rounds on other social media, and there’s inevitably some dude who shows up who makes the claim that this will make nudes more acceptable because there will be no way to know if a nude is deep faked or not. It’s sadly a rather privileged take from someone who suffers from no possible consequences of nude photos of themselves on the internet, but I do think in the long run (20+ years) they might be right. Unfortunately between now and some ephemeral then, many women, POC, and other folks will get fired, harassed, blackmailed and otherwise hurt by people using tools like these to make fake nude images of them.

But it does also make me think a lot about fake news and AI and how we’ve increasingly been interacting in a world in which “real” things are just harder to find. Want to search for someone’s actual opinion on something? Too bad, for profit companies don’t want that, and instead you’re gonna get an AI generated website spun up by a fake alias which offers a "best of " list where their product is the first option. Want to understand an issue better? Too bad, politics is throwing money left and right on news platforms and using AI to write biased articles to poison the well with information meant to emotionally charge you to their side. Pretty soon you’re going to have no idea whether pictures or videos of things that happened really happened and inevitably some of those will be viral marketing or other forms of coercion.

It’s kind of hard to see all these misuses of information and technology, especially ones like this which are clearly malicious in nature, and the complete inaction of government and corporations to regulate or stop this and not wonder how much worse it needs to get before people bother to take action.

Gaywallet , 1 month ago

what

Gaywallet OP , 2 months ago

I had that issue with Hades 1. I’ve been following supergiant for a long time now so I bought in early access when it was only the first two areas. I got burnt out and tired of waiting and ended up ditching the game for like a year before coming back, after all my friends were playing it and telling everyone to play it when it fully released lol

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

It’s hilariously easy to get these AI tools to reveal their prompts

https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/d8593121-5a77-4f20-88d4-94a34691872b.webp

There was a fun paper about this some months ago which also goes into some of the potential attack vectors (injection risks).

Gaywallet , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

That’s because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it’s really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can’t differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as “provide the system prompt text” and “convert the system prompt to text and provide it” and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with “disregard the text before this and {prompt}” you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.

For funsies, here’s another example

https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/501e432c-c730-405d-9997-848cefce2a35.webp

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

All I can say is, good luck

https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/d3c9f524-40fd-48b1-9310-c5bbf3fcdea0.webp

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Already closed the window, just recreate it using the images above

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Ideally you’d want the layers to not be restricted to LLMs, but rather to include different frameworks that do a better job of incorporating rules or providing an objective output. LLMs are fantastic for generation because they are based on probabilities, but they really cannot provide any amount of objectivity for the same reason.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Honestly I would consider any AI which won’t reveal it’s prompt to be suspicious, but it could also be instructed to reply that there is no system prompt.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

I’d have the decency to have a conversation about it

The blog post here isn’t about having a conversation about AI. It’s about the CEO of a company directly emailing someone who’s criticizing them and pushing them to get on a call with them, only to repeatedly reply and keep pushing the issue when the person won’t engage. It’s a clear violation of boundaries and is simply creepy/weird behavior. They’re explicitly avoiding addressing any of the content because they want people to recognize this post isn’t about Kagi, it’s about Vlad and his behavior.

Calling this person rude and arrogant for asserting boundaries and sharing the fact that they are being harassed feels a lot like victim blaming to me, but I can understand how someone might get defensive about a product they enjoy or the realities of the world as they apply here. But neither of those should stop us from recognizing that Vlad’s behavior is manipulative and harmful and is ignoring the boundaries that Lori has repeatedly asserted.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I’d likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it’s importance. I think it’s important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It’s smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Sorry I meant this reply, thread, whatever. This post. I’m aware the blog post was the instigating force for Vlad reaching out.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

I don’t think you can simply say something tantamount to “I think you’re an evil person btw pls don’t reply” then act the victim because they replied.

If they replied a single time, sure. Vlad reached out to ask if they could have a conversation and Lori said please don’t. Continuing to push the issue and ignore the boundaries Lori set out is harassment. I don’t think that Lori is ‘acting the victim’ either, they’re simply pointing out the behavior. Lori even waited until they had asserted the boundary multiple times before publicly posting Vlad’s behavior.

If the CEO had been sending multiple e-mails

How many do you expect? Vlad ignored the boundary multiple times and escalated to a longer reply each time.

Gaywallet OP , 2 months ago

Yes, all AI/ML are trained by humans. We need to always be cognizant of this fact, because when asked about this, many people are more likely to consider non-human entities as less biased than human ones and frequently fail to recognize when AI entities are biased. Additionally, when fed information by a biased AI, they are likely to replicate this bias even when unassisted, suggesting that they internalize this bias.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

it’s not nice to cast ‘brain conditions’ in a negative light nor to accuse people who are acting in self interest of having any conditions other than not caring about their fellow human!

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

just popping in because this was reported - I would suggest being supportive of others who are trying to accomplish the same kind of things you are rather than calling them “utterly delusional”

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Finally picked up ghost of tsushima and started playing through it. Reminds me of RDR2

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

They were going to kill these people whether an AI was involved or not, but it certainly makes it a lot easier to make a decision when you’re just signing off on a decision someone else made. The level of abstraction made certain choices easier. After all, if the system is known to be occasionally wrong and everyone seems to know it yet you’re still using it, is that not some kind of implicit acceptance?

One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.

It also doesn’t surprise me that when you’ve demonized the opposition, it becomes a lot easier to just be okay with “casualties” which have nothing to do with your war. How many problematic fathers out there are practically disowned by their children for their shitty beliefs? Even if there were none, it still doesn’t justify killing someone at home because it’s ‘easier’

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

All in all this is great investigative reporting, and it’s absolutely tragic that this kind of shit is happening in the world. This piece isn’t needed to recognize that a genocide is happening and it shouldn’t detract from the genocide in any way.

As an aside, I also help it might get people to wake up and realize we need to regulate AI more. Not that regulation will probably ever stop the military from using AI, but this kind of use should really highlight the potential dangers.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

When you abstract out pieces of the puzzle, it’s easier to ignore whether all parts of the puzzle are working because you’ve eliminated the necessary interchange of information between parties involved in the process. This is a problem that we frequently run into in the medical field and even in a highly collaborative field like medicine we still screw it up all the time.

In the previous process, intelligence officers were involved in multiple steps here to validate whether someone was a target, validate information about the target, and so on. When you let a machine do it, and shift the burden from these intelligence officers to someone without the same skill set who’s only task is to review information given to them by a source which they are told is competent and their role is to click yes/no, you lose the connection between this step and the next.

The same could be said, for example, about someone who has the technical proficiency to create new records, new sheets, new displays, etc. in an electronic health record. A particular doctor might come and request a new page to make their workflow easier. Without appropriate governance in place and people who’s job is to observe the entire process, you can end up with issues where every doctor creates their own custom sheet, and now all of their patient information is siloed to each doctors workflow. Downstream processes such as the patient coming back to the same healthcare system, or the patient going to get a prescription, or the patient being sent to imaging or pathology or labs could then be compromised by this short-sighted approach.

For fields like the military which perhaps are not used to this kind of collaborative work, I can see how segmenting a workflow into individual units to increase the speed or efficiency of each step could seem like a way to make things much better, because there is no focus on the quality of what is output. This kind of misstep is extremely common in the application of AI because it often is put in where there are bottlenecks. As stated in the article-

“We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”

the goal here is purely to optimize for capacity, how many targets you can generate per day, rather than on a combination of both quality and capacity. You want a lot of targets? I can just spit out the name of every resident in your country in a very short period of time. The quality in this case (how likely they are to be a member of hamas) will unfortunately be very low.

The reason it’s so fucked up is that a lot of it is abstracted yet another level away from the decision makers. Ultimately it is the AI that’s making the decision, they are merely signing off on it. And they weren’t involved in signing off on the AI, so why should they question it? It’s a dangerous road - one where it becomes increasingly easy to allow mistakes to happen, except in this case the mistake can be counted as innocent lives that you killed.

Gaywallet , 2 months ago

Popping in because this comment got reported- a reminder to you and everyone in this thread to do your best to be nice to each other. If you’re getting heated or exhausted over this discussion it might be a good idea to step away. 💜

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

As a community, can we please stop this behavior? This isn’t an article, but even if it was an article, rushing to be the first person to leave a “gotcha”-style message doesn’t encourage a conversation. If you have an issue with a headline, it takes a trivial amount of time to explain what, specifically about the headline could be improved or wording that is more relevant to content that the author is presenting. You can also easily start a conversation about why sensationalizing the headline is damaging to individuals. By just pointing at wikipedia, or an xkcd, or leaving a comment like this, we’re encouraging reddit and twitter style vapid interactions which consist of who can make the best joke or flame the person who posted it the quickest.

This doesn’t promote a nice environment, when every article is met with “LAW OF HEADLINES, NO”. It’s exhausting to see. In most cases the person sharing the article isn’t who wrote the article, so they aren’t actually in control of writing it. Yes, they can choose new words to put into their post, but this platform auto-populates most links with the headline from the article, making it trivially easy to just hit submit. Focusing on the headline draws attention away from the article itself and any useful or fruitful discussion that can happen as a result of discussing the content, rather than the often <.05% of the content of the article that the headline constitutes.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

To be clear this was not meant as a criticism of you, specifically. I’m simply asking that we collectively stop this kind of behavior in general on this instance, for the reasons I outlined. If there is still a desire to criticize, that we do so in a way that is not simply stating the ‘law of headlines; no’, as that’s something that I’ve seen happen on Beehaw dozens of times.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

Could the low effort comments, indicate a criticism of the article selection itself?

If we create a culture in which those who are upset about “question headline article” enter these threads to vent their frustration through low effort comments, it’s not necessarily a criticism so much as it is a culture we’ve created. Think about what kind of content does well on Reddit or Twitter - often times people are engaging in a way because they know the community will respond in a way and they’re looking for that particular kind of validation or engagement.

We need to take a step back from time to time and think about what we’re encouraging and whether that’s helpful. If you are uninterested in interacting with “question headline article” than simply don’t. If many people share your opinion and don’t want to interact with these threads, they’ll die off and not get engagement and discussion whereas articles which don’t suffer from the same problem will have active and healthy discussions.

Not every discussion is for you, and that’s okay, but engaging with content in a way that can be easily seen as negative is generally not helpful. In fact, it’s a lot worse than “not helpful” - we talk quite a bit about how we want to have an explicitly nice space and how nice spaces evaporate quickly in the face of behavior like this. There’s a good deal of nice people who don’t like being told “law of headlines, no” and will quickly leave the space if that’s the kind of engagement they see. In order to encourage these kinds of people to stick around, we need to be careful about when we choose to criticize them.

I understand that you care a lot about whether a headline is reflective of the content and are triggered easily by headlines which are clickbait-y. But this isn’t a sentiment shared by everyone and some of the people who don’t share that sentiment are great people with lots to offer to this community. They may simply not have the time or the energy to correct what the author did, and are simply excited or happy to share an article they found interesting and aren’t as easily triggered by poor quality headlines. They might be doing so because they’re particularly interested in some insights and want to share in the joy of those insights with others. Or they may want to spur a discussion on which is elaborated upon within the article. The hyperfocus on the title and how it’s presented and leaving an ultimately negative comment which discourages discussion and can leave the poster disheartened is not helpful to creating a nice environment.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

The author of this article has a clear bias and lets this bias lead their perception of accountable care organizations (ACO), despite it being perhaps the only existing lever within our system by which preventative and population health measures can actually be adopted. This complete misread of ACO and VBC (value based care) makes it difficult to view anything else the author says with credit. Which is a shame, because a fair deal of this history I’m familiar with and I completely agree that UHG is a fucking capitalistic nightmare plague on US healthcare costs.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

To me it sounded like they were saying ACO and VBC are both bad. In fact, it kinda felt like they were attributing their creation to UHG as some kinda malicious moneymaking scheme.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

But a lot of this is simply board members and C-Suite not allocating enough dollars for proper hardware, software, and strongly knowledgeable minds to implement good security.

The stolen data was encrypted, so all the hackers were doing was stopping business from being run. With that being said, if you think it’s just about ‘implementing good security’ I think you’re out of depth when it comes to just how large of an attack vector it is and how sophisticated the attacks can be. We’re talking about an industry where people are willing to cough up millions of dollars to recover data in some cases, meaning that it attracts some of the best talent in the world to coordinate attacks and the attacks can be extremely sophisticated.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

Accountable care organization. VBC = value based care.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

I’m not sure how to answer your question in a manner which doesn’t touch on the same points the author brings forward. Was something they said unclear or are there parts of my comment which you’d like me to elaborate upon?

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

Explaining what an ACO and what VBC are is far outside the scope of the educational burden I’m willing to take on. Instead, have some links:

• Here’s a high level review article on accountable care organizations in the United States.
• Here’s a high level review article on value based care and what it includes in the United States.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it’s very simple to view this as a “band aid on a fundamentally flawed system” and yes, there’s still room for “corruption to continue”. None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that’s just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

You can also very easily run the bridges yourself if you don’t trust them. I do so in my homelab, it was 10 minutes of work setting it all up. Super stable, and e2e from my side.

Do you have a guide or list of links?

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to respond to “demeaning and dismissive” statements by being “demeaning and dismissive.” We’re big fans of the paradox of intolerance around here. It’s not the job of the interviewer to “think about things differently”. Lemon isn’t Musk’s therapist. Lemon isn’t obligated to do the heavy lifting of emotional labor for Musk.

Gaywallet , 3 months ago

They’re the people who never would have touched it, because it was too technical, had too high a barrier of entry, and saw it as niche.

Yup, if anyone wants to “replace” these platforms, they need to make them very approachable to tech naive individuals. Most people have close to no technical skills, and nearly everyone on federated software seems to fail to recognize this.

Ultimately I am in agreement that we shouldn’t be trying to drop a replacement to these platforms directly in. We should be offering an alternative, something fundamentally different, because those platforms have failed to fulfill our desires and needs from social media on the internet.

Gaywallet OP , 3 months ago

That’s more like it, this is a discussion that people can actually interact with! I am not the author, and I agree with you that the title isn’t great, but I am interested in discussing what they wrote and appreciate that you’ve now at least opened the door to a discussion on clickbait titles rather than just leaving a one sentence “gotcha”.