ranandtoldthat

In 10 it was possible to turn it all off and leave it off. In 11 it's almost impossible to do so.

This seems unfairly dismissive of someone who's proved themselves time and again. The article might not be about what you wish it was about but it's insightful about the topic it covers.

In that case, I suggest you stop throwing dirt at GN.

Activity Pub is a very popular way to decentralize.

With political uncertainty around centralized meteorological data infrastructure, it makes sense to continue the process of decentralization. The underlying APIs can be changed in the future if needed.

Peer review is false security, so much bad and fraudulent science gets through, but due to the stamp of authority people are less skeptical. Additionally it's harder to publish good science.

There's a lot of people who understand this better than me who can explain it. Here's one starting point. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

Forbes, for many years, has been mostly written by freelance bloggers. Some is very high quality (some is not) but it's not like an editor in a newsroom is asking for these stories.

They have journalists on staff still but they write a minority of what Forbes publishes online.

Not to defend Google because they violate privacy in many ways, but they absolutely do not share that level of data with partners. This is not some ethical decision. The data is just far too valuable to Google. Google is extracting as much value as they can from users, advertisers, and publishers, and if they sold access to the data itself, publishers and advertisers could begin cutting out Google. Instead Google gives advertisers a lot of control over what users to target, and uses the data inside a black box to show those ads.

Google is hoarding your data and using it to show you ads with minimal built-in opt-outs. But they aren't sell your data.

They also have a book about human evolution. 😵

Any port in a storm, indeed.

GPT 1 and 2 were both more open than later releases. However I'm not sure any are fully FOSS.

This is just a standard prompt hack. This will always exist with llms. They don't have any real understanding of language so safety protocols can't actually ban topics, only sets of words and phrases.

There was an extensive set of prompts working toward elder abuse before the result in question.

My guess is that the redditor who discovered it disguised it to look like homework and reproduced the hack, and added the "brother" to create more authentic rage bait.

Any thoughts from less bigoted creators would be welcome. Not in the mood to watch anything with this person.