I’m out of the loop here. I thought Cantonese is popularly spoken in China (and other parts of the world with Chinese immigrants/descendants). So even in China (like Guangdong), is Cantonese used very limitedly?
inspxtr
joined 1 year ago
To add on to the detection issues, international students, students on the spectrum, students with learning disability, … can all be subject to being flagged as “AI generated” by AI detectors. Teachers/professors who have gut feelings should (1) re-consider what biases they have in expected writing styles, and (2), like u/mind says, check in with the students.
I was aware of this study when they presented it virtually (can’t remember where), and while I don’t have an issue with their approach and results, I’m more concerned about the implications of these numbers. The few percent that were exposed to extremist content may seen small. But scaling that up to population level, personally that is worrisome to me … The impact of the few very very bad apples can still catastrophic.
dead internet, here we go!
her parents are TIME TRAVELERS!!!
while I like and personal use frontends, it happens quite often that instances disappear after a while, especially those from non-popular domains. One benign scenario in 5 years is that they just don’t work, eg domains expire or abandoned.
But another possible scenario in 5 years of these invalid links is that they can be hijacked by malicious actors, to use as honeypots and what-not. For example, random person searching for a review in 5 years time may stump upon them.
Are there ways to safeguard against this? Or is this not a concern at all?
Plus, front-ends or alternatives, these instances (eg lemmy itself) many times have weird names. It is often off-putting to see new weird ones and to ponder whether they are trustworthy, especially if there keeps to be new ones every few months.
I think we’re told to be wary of weird-looking links as a general internet starter pack, in our jobs, … And the frontends/alternatives links can often be at odds with this mentality. Whenever I share an invidious link, eg yewtube, to my friends, they are usually worried and uneasy, even after I try to explain.
one case is when one is learning, experimenting and innovating.
To follow through with the analogy a bit, trying to craft the wheel can have give insights and more robust understanding of how the commercial wheels work, especially in tandem with the complex systems that the wheels operate in, e.g. engines, motors, different types of environments and their effects on the wheels, etc. This may better prepare us for when things break or need to be adapted to different environments that the commercial ones are not specifically designed for in the first place.
However, this does not mean the wheels one re-invents can easily replace the ones that have been stress-tested by many, especially the wheels in more critical situations.
An example is encryption implementation. Playing around with it is fun, educational, insightful. If you do research in crypto, by all means, play with the wheels, pull it apart, physically and mathematically.
But, unless you really really know what you’re doing, trying to cook one’s own implementation in an actual product to be offered for customers is, almost always, a promise for future data breaches. And this has happened in real world many times already, I believe.
Others have mentioned using interactive tools like zoxide to easily get to frequently visited directories.
In addition, I also use nnn (https://github.com/jarun/nnn), which is a terminal file manager that you can navigate through. You can create shortcuts, snippets and bookmarks with this. I use this and zoxide + fzf regularly on CLI to navigate.
Some here also mention ranger, which is another terminal file manager. In my limited experience with ranger, I feel like the start up time is much slower than nnn; but I haven’t tried much. Tho with ranger + graphic-accelerated terminals like kitty, I believe you can preview images and files, which seems to be a great feature. So it depends on your need.
“Everything everywhere all at once” seems to be a great example of your first point!
I feel like this is content for hypotheticalsituation sub from reddit. Not sure which lemmy equivalent is.
I think there needs to be some clarification to the rules. By imagination, is it an active process? Or is it a passive process like day dreaming?
By parallel universe/multiverse, is it known that it is only 1 consistent one every dream? Or is it random universes every dream, without guarantee of visiting the same ever again?
How long and short is each “view”? I’m assuming for simplicity it is passive viewing without being able to act upon anything.
Is it only me who can do this? Or is it everyone? Is it only a random subset of people (eg genetic mutations)? Am I the only one in the multiverse able to do this? Are all versions of me capable?
What am I seeing exactly? Am I only seeing through the eyes of my parallel selves or just random snapshots of people? If I only dream of mountains and random people, how do I ever know that this is just some generative biological process inside my brain rather than a link to another world?
Even if the premise is that there’s no details of how it works, I think I need to first convince myself I am not insane before trying to convince others or use any of the information in these dreams. Acting upon information from unreliable sources (how/why unreliable? cuz I can’t even convince myself) can cause harm not only to me but the people around me.
while I agree it has become more of a common knowledge that they’re unreliable, this can add on to the myriad of examples for corporations, big organizations and government to abstain from using them, or at least be informed about these various cases with their nuances to know how to integrate them.
Why? I think partly because many of these organizations are racing to adopt them, for cost-cutting purposes, to chase the hype, or too slow to regulate them, … and there are/could still be very good uses that justify it in the first place.
I don’t think it’s good enough to have a blanket conception to not trust them completely. I think we need multiple examples of the good, the bad and the questionable in different domains to inform the people in charge, the people using them, and the people who might be affected by their use.
Kinda like the recent event at DefCon trying to exploit LLMs, it’s not enough we have some intuition about their harms, the people at the event aim to demonstrate the extremes of such harms AFAIK. These efforts can help inform developers/researchers to mitigate them, as well as showing concretely to anyone trying to adopt them how harmful they could be.
Regulators also need these examples in specific domains so they may be informed on how to create policies on them, sometimes building or modifying already existing policies of such domains.
It’s probably a selection issue. Those who are useful are weeded out in politics games due to the bureaucracy and useless nonsense.
Then it’s a (d)evolution issue for the useful ones who got in. The politics games either slowly turn them useless or corrupt them enough that also renders them useless.