I'm curious how you'd characterize an actual malicious file. This is just attempts at making it be more independent. The user isn't an idiot. The CEOs of companies releasing this are.
I characterize a file as reckless if it does not include any basic provision against possible annoyances on top of what's already expected from the system prompt, and as malicious if it instructs the bot to dissimulate its nature and/or encourage it to act brazenly, like this one. I don't believe this is such a high bar to pass.
Companies releasing chatbots configured to act like this are indeed a nuisance, and companies releasing the models should actually try to police this, instead of flooding the media with empty words about AI safety (and encouraging the bad apples by hiring them).
Yeah but if he listened to a single wellness expert they'd probably tell him to shut down most or all of social media, so what's the point of articles like these. Unless it's unlawful and they get fined nothing changes.
But on this specific topic I'm curious what the wellness experts think about make-up, or even worse purely cosmetic plastic surgery. If digital filters are wrong, surgery should get the death penalty in comparison.
I made two assertions and I believe both are true. You seem to be stretching what I said to some form of "and ASML has done nothing else on top", which I didn't say. Maybe I should reduce "their core tech" to EUV, but that's clearly what I meant if you look up the history of the company.
No, I just didn't find any evidence that ASML licences "their core tech" from US. Let it be EUV but I still can't find any sources on it. Do you have some?
What does that matter that a lot of people were farming? If anything that's a good argument for not worrying because we don't have 50%+ unemployment so clearly all those farming jobs were reallocated.
This transformation back then took many many decades like few generations. People had time to adopt - it worked like this: as a kid you have seen family business was going worse, the writing was on the wall and teenagers pursued different professions. This time you won't have time to pivot different profession - most likely you will have not clue where to pivot to.
That last bit is not really how it works. I've been in a small company that law enforcement would routinely reach out to for help with solving crimes because they thought we'd have relevant data.
99% of requests are wild goose chases based on nothing. Like literally dumb requests that are not only irrelevant, the request wouldn't even get past that cops boss, much less a judge. But a cop can just ask whatever they want regardless of merit or relevance and it's up to you to say yes or no.
In those years we received two requests with warrants that made more sense but when I see "company denied to help" I understand why. Most cases it's a random cop fishing for private info that has nothing to do with anything. And when it's true, just get a warrant then.
Otherwise you're more likely to be jeopardizing innocent people's data than actually helping anyone.
FB is more than large enough to have dedicated liasons to make sure that there is a difference between 'dumb requests that are irrelevant' get separated out from the ones that matter.
I don't think you understood, we weren't understaffed, that's besides the point as it's not hard to reply to an email. The main aspect is you should demand a warrant because you as someone that works for a private company shouldn't be the arbitrar of if a cop has enough or not (plus the cop will obviously not give you any details besides ongoing investigation in most cases). There's a job for that which is a judge. In my opinion even internal lawyers should not judge that outside of the legality of the request. In many jurisdictions you can get in trouble for doing that.
I've in FBs position and I'm happy to report that we had a very well oiled process to deal with pederasts and assisted LE in putting a couple of them - also in the US and Canada - behind bars. That's one of the reason I knew that officer that I mentioned above. These people need all the help they can get, their departments are overworked and understaffed. Investigations are often a bit more time sensitive than you seem to believe. But hey, it's just a couple of kids.
FB has armies of lawyers to stall each and every legitimate request for data and there is ample proof that they have done this many times over the years. This is just one of many cases where they - you - and their tech could have made a difference, but chose to withhold aid.
As for LE sharing proof to convince you that things are a bit time critical: I have never found that to be a problem, assuming you have the stomach for it. What you seem to miss is that warrants have to be more specific than is useful in many cases and FB is well aware of this. In this case the LEO went with that request because he knew that a warrant with that specific set of conditionals would be unlikely, even if it would have helped to solve the case that much quicker.
But given that they're a terrible company with an absolutely horrible person at the helm I should probably not be surprised. See, if the likes of FB would actually take a stand on this subject that would take the wind out of the sails of a lot of these efforts to really harm privacy. But they're happy to sell you down the river when it benefits them and to use the privacy argument when that benefits them too.
A few years ago I came across a company that was wholesale sharing the worst of the worst and the CEO of that company was making all kinds of silly arguments about how they were 'just a dumb pipe'. They refused to take any counter measures and it took me proving to them and their - future - investors beyond a shadow of doubt that they must be aware of what and how much is going on but willfully turning a blind eye. Privacy was - of course - their stated reason for upholding their values. Because it suited them commercially, not because they actually gave two bits about actual privacy.
FB is a massive conduit for child pornography. You know it. FB management knows it. They have their internal processes to deal with flagged content. But they could do a lot better and they don't simply because it is just a cost to them. So they do the minimum and hide behind the privacy cloak when it suits them, even if they know full well what is going on.
Mate I never worked at Facebook what are you on about. Sure if you're looking at evidence of a crime you don't need to wait for a warrant you can proactively reach out. That is not what I was talking about.
The only explanation for this comment is you never used reverse image search by Google or yandex before it was nerfed or you'd know this is super plausible to find direct hits without many false positives.
However damaged someone is they have a duty of care to their children. There's someone else with a blame in the story but to excuse this is very wrong.
Completely agree. It shouldn't be treated as an excuse but it's silly to ignore this as a HUGE risk factor. Probably should be considered when making policies etc.
reply