Do be careful with the spray foam insulation, I've known a couple of folk who have had to spend a fair bit to put right the side effects caused by poorly done spray foam insulation.
Merriam-Webster is the wrong horse if you want to force two syllables given that Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) has several acceptable pronunciations, one syllable (rhyming with “home”) and two syllables (with the second pronounced like “um” or “im” or “em”).
Kind of hypocritical on my behalf. I'm more of a descriptivist when it comes to language; I see it as a living breathing creation that is whatever we make of it, as long as the message is reliably traversing to mind to mind, it is correct.
They couyld have indeed presented data that only AIs would scrape or notice... which would be entirely legitimate on their part to do.
My own website spews bogus content and misinformation about almost any topic to misconfigured scrapers. I expect to eventually see it in some training sets.
Which the AI then passes on to a user who doesn't know any better and then you get recipes for mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma (extreme example).
If I write a story that includes a character mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma and publish it on my website, am I responsible for an LLM company ingesting my story without contact or my consent and then at some point in the future providing a user instructions to mix bleach and ammonia for curing asthma?
If you do this with the intent of LLMs scraping this and this ending up in the corpus used by LLMs, it is indeed very illegal, especially as LLMs become more load bearing for medicine, defense, etc.
very illegal? under what law? the one that's embedded in the us constitution that asserts that congress shall make no law affecting freedom of speech (and is incorporated against the states)? seems highly unlikely if so
On the contrary, I'm saying is that it's not okay that the world becomes worse-off, as long as it's not [the LLM companies'] fault. If it means they don't have a viable business model by only ingesting data that they have permission for and is verified, and by being held fully responsible for the content they serve their users - in order to prevent the world from becoming worse-off - then they should not operate.
This seems like a two wrongs don't make a right situation. Yes, the LLM providers are in the wrong for not vetting data. But in my mind, the person poisoning data is also partially responsible for negative downstream effects that are caused. What % of the blame is up for argument, but neither side is 0% in the wrong.
So the type and content of what fiction I write should be controlled so that LLM companies may choose for the sake of maximum profit to haphazardly collect any data they please and to neglect the safety and validity of the content they choose to serve users?
If it's meant to be fiction and not presented as a real-world fact, then I don't see any problem on your part. If you're presenting it as fact solely to trick an LLM into believing it, then yes I see a problem.
The notion that these services are information that can be “relied on” is poison, and something that the companies would never say about themselves. Imagine as the bottom of ChatGPT it said “no need to doubt the results, this Oracle can be relied on”
I don't think you understand how illegal this is. As these models start being used for autonomous decisionmaking in medicine, defense and whatnot, this will be considered industrial sabotage and if it ever harms someone you are so fucked.
I'm not even debating the morality of AI and LLM companies here, this is just fact. If a pharma company is illegally using your water source, you cannot poison it knowing the pharma company will then use this water. Well, not unless you like prison.
If writing harmful information online (including wikipedia) was something illegal, wouldn't there be just a ton of currently illegal shit online? Like anti-vax stuff?
At present, nobody does. You'd have to see what a court case says.
But it would have to be the case that it's reasonable to expect people to rely on an LLM for medical advice. Which would in turn require that the creator of the LLM is not responsible.
It should be illegal to make life and death decisions based on automated reasoning. I know it’s coming and I’m being a curmudgeon but I will hold fast, the liar is not responsible for being believed.
I like the Wikipedia comparison, forget about the automated reasoning. Wikipedia does not make any representations as to the truthfulness of its content. If you’re a medical doctor and believe some wiki graffiti, you are the responsible party, you are the one that’s supposed to know better.
If you want to rebut I’m most interested in knowing what law you believe would be cited in a data poisoning case.
One day the automated decisionmaking systems will be far better at making decisions than us. That day is not far off. At some point, we will turn to these systems for our most important life-and-death decisions. I don't think that's irrational.
In this era, intending to corrupt the automated decisionmaking systems we rely on, will certainly be sabotage (if done with that intent, as is the case with OP). However, I don't think any sabotage would actually work well in the era of superintelligence, so perhaps the point is moot.
Poison? Seriously? As if false references, perpetual false confidence, sycophantic suicidal encouragement, and convoluted spaghetti code wasn't enough. 90% of what these things fling is poison and the quicker the general public recognizes it the quicker they won't be duped into taking them at face value. The training sets are already going to be full of AI generated garbage. This just hastens the recognition.
And for this the company responsible for the AI disseminating this information in such a way that people are relying on it should be prosecuted and/or sued into oblivion.
The original poster of the bad information should perhaps as well, but only also if it was reasonable to rely on them for this.
(We have the legal principles, we just need to use them.)
I suspect it may be too late for Trump at least - he has managed to demonstrate to Iran that they have more power than they thought they did, and it may be quite difficult to return to the pre-war state of affairs.
It seems many countries around the straits are now thinking "Hmm, we can charge ships to pass through...".
I don't think that would have happened without Trump.
Yeah, it's definitely not going to be back to where it was before he started his Iran debacle. He broke it. But now gaming it out it seems like him just deciding to withdraw would be the best outcome that we could probably get. Otherwise just sticking around in the area and issuing threats just causes Iran to react and that effectively keeps the SoH closed (heck, the US even closes it sometimes).
While you're not wrong, I suspect that .lan sees more real world usage than .local
It may not be an official standard, but it does have some weight as a de-facto standard.
I've tried briefly to try and find some numbers to back that up, but can't find much beyond apple's bonjour vs consumer routers - although I've seen companies with AD domains using .lan as well. (Although, I've also seen companies using 1.0.0.0/8 for their internal addressing...)
it definitely gets used, and i hope that the application is denied, but i also hope this is another wake up call for people that pick unreserved domains.
Wake up to what? The fact ICANN have failed in their governance responsibilities by not encoding a widely used defacto private namespace into the reserved namespace RFC and considering delegating it publicly?
whether you consider this a failure of ICANN or not is completely beside the point.
if you choose to use an unreserved domain, you are choosing to accept the risk of something like this happening. take ownership of your choices. "but other people use it" is not a great defense.
Bear in mind the advice on these things changes over time, and it's possible that the situation in the past may not have been as clear cut.
As an example, at one point in the past (I think in the 90's?), Microsoft recommended using .local for AD domains, whereas now they explicitly recommend against it.
It's a default on OpenWRT and Ubiquiti devices. I don't think consumers should be blamed nor suffer because they didn't know their pricey Ubiquiti router was using a de facto but not officially reserved TLD. you can blame Ubiquiti i guess, but once upon a time there were no reserved TLDs and it was the job of ICANN to deny new ones that had widespread understanding not to be internet routable, so it's not like there's no precedent for Ubiquiti's behavior either.
reply