𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a response from OpenAI, it could well be some bot platform that serves this API response.

I’m pretty sure someone somewhere has created a product that allows you to generate bot responses from a variety of LLM sources. And if whatever is interacting with it is simply reading the response body and stripping out what it expects to be there to leave only the message, I could easily see a fairly bad programmer create something that outputs something like this.

It’s certainly possible this is just a troll account, but it could also just be shit software.

It can’t be effective. The risk of false-positives is huge.

Perhaps it was being influenced by the chat history. But try asking how many r’s in raspberry, it does get that consistently wrong for me. And you can ask it those followup questions to easily get it to spout nonsense, and that was mostly my point; figuring out if you’re talking to an LLM is fairly trivial.

My point is that telling it a right answer is wrong often causes LLMs to completely shit the bed. They used to argue with you nonsensically, now they give you a different answer (often also wrong).

The only question missing at the start was "How many r’s are there in the word ‘veryberry’. I think raspberry also worked when I tried it. This was ChatGPT4-O. I did mark all the answers as bad, so perhaps they’ve fixed this one by now.

Still, it’s remarkably trivial to get an LLM to provide a clearly non-human response.

Here’s what I got:**

It’s dead simple to see if you’re talking to an LLM. The latest models don’t pass the Turing test, not even close. Asking them simple shit causes them to crap themselves really quickly.

Ask ChatGPT how many r’s there are in “veryberry”. When it gets it wrong, tell it you’re disappointed and expect a correct answer. If you do that repeatedly, you can get it to claim there’s more r’s in the word than it has letters.

Any enterprise working with sensitive data certainly has to disable the feature. And turns out, that’s most enterprises.

I have heard very little, if any, enthusiasm about this. Nobody seems to be excited about it at all.

Nuclear reactors are ill-suited for baseloads, because they can’t scale their output in an economical way.

You always want the cheapest power available to fulfill demand, which is solar and wind. Those regularly provide more than 100% of the demand. At this point, any other power sources would shut off due to economical reasons. Same with nuclear, nobody wants to buy expensive nuclear energy at peak solar/wind hours, so the reactor needs to turn off. And while some designs can fairly quickly power down, powering up is a different matter and doing either in an economically feasible way is a fantasy right now.

If solar and wind don’t provide enough power to satisfy demand, some other power source needs to turn on. Studies have already shown that current-gen battery storage is capable of doing so. Alternatives could be hydrogen or gas power stations. Nuclear isn’t an option economically speaking.

It sounds more like Rashida Jones.

Ah, that may be true indeed.

Signal recently updated to allow usernames instead of phone numbers.

A strong bias against genocide and in favour of peace is not a very disagreeable one.

Techwise it probably doesn’t, but then there’s marketeers, sales, accountants, legal, etc…

Well, more RAM will always help. An iPhone with more RAM will allow it to perform better than one with less RAM. Similarly, too little RAM will hamper performance regardless of the device.

Android has a garbage collector, meaning it requires an additional 2GB of RAM of overhead to keep things smooth. iPhones run significantly hotter than Androids, and consume more energy to achieve their performance gains.

It’s not true to simply state “one is better than the other”. There’s various metrics in which either one may be better.

Tai was actively being manipulated by malicious users.

Music locker services are frequenly targeted and taken down, as GlitterInfection mentioned. There’s multiple cases on the Wikipedia page.

There is a jump between hosting and sharing, but that jump is very small. Share it with 1 other person, and you have made unauthorised copies of the licensed material, and are therefore acting against the law. That’s not FUD, that’s been reality for the past few decades.

Whether or not the illegal sharing of licensed material is done via a generic website, a federated service of even carrier pidgeon doesn’t matter, an unlicensed copy is an illegal copy. Rightsholders have pleny of avenues to force a takedown against specific instances. And if they can successfully argue that the primary purpose of this software is piracy, they may even have enough legal arguments to force a takedown of the sourcecode.

Of course, the main question is whether rightsholders will bother with this as long as it remains small-scale. Legal costs would likely outweigh the missed income. But that doesn’t actually shield you from legal liability.

They would be able to sue the webhost in order to retrieve basically all the data if they have strong and reasonable suspicions that the website is hosting copyrighted material.

This really isn’t as foolproof in legal terms unfortunately. With torrent websites there’s still some ambiguity as the website doesn’t host the copyrighted material, just the torrent files. But here the website itself is liable, painting a massive legal target on their backs.

ISPs can be compelled to share name/address information of anyone involved in publishing licensed material through the courts. Then they’ll summon you to stop or pay a fairly hefty fine.

At least in the Netherlands this would still constitute unauthorised copying of licensed material, and therefore be illegal.