Somewhat confused how to read these results. I pasted text that was "manually written with some AI support" to gauge how much was actual human, and got 66% AI. But a large part of that relates to, as far as I can tell, the use of the word 'perception' in the conclusion....a part that reads very human.
Do the highlights relate to just that specific word, or does that highlight extend to other unmarked areas of the text, which is why that would be so heavily weighted in the result?
Your president and his wife both separately were involved in blatant crypto rug pulls only 18 months ago. The fact you still have freedom of speech has no bearing on whether the country is comically corrupt.
> Your president and his wife both separately were involved in blatant crypto rug pulls only 18 months ago.
Sadly that isn't even close to the worst of it. Trump regularly pardons people of federal crimes in exchange for money and forcibly shuts down insider trader investigations into his own family.
We are living in a time of unprecedented open corruption in the US government.
Also the funding of Trump Jr’s wedding by a Russian oligarch…
Private sponsorship of personal vanity projects (White House ballroom)…
Jet gifted by a foreign entity (Qatari AF1)…
Ambassadors demanding personal payment for guaranteed audiences (Guilfoyle)…
And that’s just in recent memory. The Left isn’t blameless either. The fix needs to be systemic (repeal Citizens U, re-build independent oversight and nerf the executive), but unfortunately I only see it becoming a deeper and more acrimonious blame game.
> What I'm saying is the US broadly has low corruption. I don't have to pay a bribe to get my drivers license or to get through the airport.
Low compared to who? Third-world countries? Again, just shows how far we’ve fallen that these are the comparisons being made. The problem with the US isn’t direct low-level corruption, it’s systematized high-level corruption.
> Broadly speaking you can't purchase bills or laws, and have to convince the public.
There is a multi-billion-dollar lobbying industry whose purpose is essentially this, but through legal indirect channels. And the public are so ill-informed that spending money = convincing the public.
> The US has issues, but any supposed lack of data privacy laws isn't due to corruption, it's due to the will of the people
I tend to agree with this, but if there ever was broad momentum to strengthen data privacy laws, systematized corruption would stymie it. And is likely already actively suppressing it.
We're probably at the weakest point in our history militarily, with few recruits coming in. People in government saying they are "going to have" conversations about war with the public (FYI, UK would be behind most other countries on this, many already have done in last 5 years) is very different to "militarization" in any way that would relate to this 4Chan decision, it's not even "we are actually doing something".
And politicians have repeatedly stated the need for better control of information, connecting it directly to the Ukraine conflict and perceived threats from Russia.
I think there’s a strong case to be made that the push for information control is partly connected to military/defense goals.
Given they found a secret key in a public place? No that’s not malicious and it would be odd for a serious organisation to be upset someone immediately invalidated it.
Are you really unable to imagine a situation where financial or physical harm is caused by a system abruptly being shut down by a credential revocation, triggered by a random person on the internet?
Other options available: ruin the company financially, violate the terms of service of whatever system it uses and get the organisation banned, access business/customer data.
If it’s that sensitive and there’s access keys accessible to anyone, it could end up much worse. Nobody said it was without inconvenience.
This is so stupid. It’s pretty simple: malicious actors will use it to do all of those, plus now they can unilaterally bring down a system via revocation.
Non-malicious actors using it to bring down a system via revocation are therefore indistinguishable from malicious actors. It’s by definition a malicious act.
That’s why it’s a stupid idea. Non-malicious actors should just contact the company and let them take action. It’s not for an outsider to decide the impact of a leak.
Could you point to the part where I said revocation as a principle is a bad idea? Rather than what I actually said, which was that untraceable random third parties revoking your keys without any involvement likely isn’t a good idea.
Also GitHub doesn’t revoke the keys. The providers of the key take provider-specific actions, which may or may not be revocation.
That’s your opinion and plenty of people in here have pointed out they disagree. It has nothing to do with people not being serious or being unable to envision a situation where it impacts an important system.
Is that system made by a supervillain or a mad scientist? But such system can go amok for any reason. Anyway revocation is already possible by publication on github, telling to GPT or sending an email to webmaster.
The alternative is that the key won't be quarantined and the attacker will be able to do everything. And quarantine still means denial of some service, e.g. ec2:StartInstances is denied, but ec2:StopInstances is allowed? So the attacker can shut down the system and you won't be able to start it again?
Personally I don't mind it, but would say the main advantages offered by JSX for this kind of work (see: React Three Fiber) are more in its ease of composition and structuring larger projects.
Often in R3F projects you'll end up running per frame animations via the normal declarative property API in the useFrame hook anyway, as adjusting props in a loop is not great for performance. The JSX instead becomes a way to easily understand the hierarchy and nesting of objects, as well as quickly mount/unmount new elements.
But the reader cannot be sure they ARE understanding what you are trying to convey. Maybe the LLM added something you never thought of, maybe it made form to your various thoughts in a way that isn't actually true to the way you would have communicated them if you did it yourself.
The exercise of writing is an important step of actually understanding your own thoughts properly. Readers are reading to get a sense of your own experience and ideas on the topic, if it turns out you didn't actually write the final thing yourself they'll always feel a sense – in whatever way – of being conned by the author. Intentional or not.
Technical documentation, where what the reader wants to come away with is the clear facts on what something does and how to use it/whatever, is a different matter. But even then editing is key – overlong text, unnecessary information, these will again fight against what the reader is there to get.
With that said, if you do want to do it, a disclaimer is at least upfront and may well show there's no intentional attempt to deceive.
> Technical documentation, where what the reader wants to come away with is the clear facts on what something does and how to use it/whatever, is a different matter.
I don’t agree with this one. Writing technical documentation can be a slog, but quite often you will discover very annoying design decisions in the process. Like you’ll write a tutorial for a CLI and realize that actually some flag makes no sense, or some default should be changed.
This also goes for dogfooding. If you’re using AI to write and run the tools, try to use them yourself and see how nice they are. AI will happily run whatever jank it’s working with.
Docstrings perhaps, but even then I find myself editing heavily to avoid cruft sneaking in.
reply