Re: SAMBA?
Samba has supported "server signing = required" for yonks so I doubt much will break.
8168 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
On the evidence of this case, they will do the bare minimum to prevent a repeat of *exactly* what just happened, rather than stepping back and asking themselves how they ought to be handling this. I'm not sure what the legal definition of negligence is, but this certainly fits my definition.
(The case file had several incidents, over several years.)
That would be about par for the course. The current standard model seems to have more or less settled into its current form in the mid-70s, so it's about 50 years old. Before that, there was a period of about 70 years of experimenters delivering endless "what the fuck" moments to the theoreticians, starting with things like the photo-electric effect. About 40 years prior to that, Maxwell's electromagnetism and a recognisable formulation of classical thermodynamics were "new" in the 1860s or so. Electricity itself was taking shape in labs around the beginning of that century. Go back much before 1770 and I think we were still knocking classical mechanics into some kind of analytical shape. And of course Newton's Principia is not much further back again (1689).
So even if the Standard Model is toast by the end of this year, I'd say it has done about as well as any of its predecessors.
"However, AI systems that could cause catastrophic outcomes do not need to be AGIs", followed by some examples of using AI to develop something dangerous.
I find this rather lame. You could say the same about "science" or "mathematics". We've faced these kinds of existential threat for ten thousand years and, er, we're still here. This is because none of these risks are self-propelled. They need a sufficiently large number of idiots to make them happen and, so far, we've avoided assembling a critical mass of such idiots. Yes, we do need to keep on doing that, but we've been working on that problem for a long time. There's nothing specifically "AI" about it.
That would probably depend on whether you platform anonymised the users. If one of your customers has a complaint against another, but is able to identify the other and sue them instead, I'd expect section 230 to get you off the hook no matter how small you are.
The hard issues here, which section 230 is intended to resolve -- legally at least, are firstly that they might have to sue "Anon42" rather than a real person (and the provider probably doesn't have much clue who that is) and secondly that Anon42 might turn out to be in a different country and so much harder for normal people to sue.
Section 230's attitude to these problems appears to be "not my problem" and "not my problem", which is probably why Big Tech likes it so much.
It does rather sound as though they know the bubble is about to burst. That is, they know they can't match the last 6 months in terms of apparent (to Joe Public) progress so they want an externally imposed reason to act as a fig leaf. That way the VC money will keep flowing despite the slowdown.
Is anyone applying BIG-Bench and its ilk to human bings, to see if they are intelligent?
I can imagine being quite miffed at being marked wrong because of a small (and probably semantically irrelevant) difference between my answer and the exact text on the examiner's answer sheet.
They won't ask themselves that because the pricing will be arranged so that all the things MS want you to have are free (and "integral") with all the things that you wanted.
It's leveraging a monopoly in one area to acquire a monopoly in another area. It's illegal, but they have always got away with it in the past.
How long till we can have something like an Echo but all done locally so that you aren't spaffing your entire existence to some corporate data whore, and the damn thing eventually gets used to your accent and habits?
Not long, I'm guessing, and it will be FOSS that does it coz none of the corporates have an incentive.
Using https for your website is an opt-in. There's been quite a lot of take-up even by folks with nothing to hide. In fact, take-up surged after Mr Snowden revealed just how much stuff that didn't need to be hidden was just being hoovered up "because they could".
It's almost like people value privacy on principle.
True, and relevant, but let's not hold AI to a higher standard than NI. I wouldn't trust most humans to build a bridge, but I don't deny their intelligence.
DARPA's criteria are for a useful AI, not just an AI, and it is fair to point out that all the hype this year has been about AI that is demonstrably not useful. 'Tis a pity that this point is not more widely appreciated in the media.
Without wishing to diminish SpaceX's accomplishment today (and I do accept their claim that not blowing up on the launchpad counts for something -- this is Hard) I think we also ought to note the accomplishment of 50-60 years ago when NASA managed something similar about a dozen times in a row, but without the RUD.
That would be "yes" and "probably no-one's". There is a lot of battery research being done in the open and I'm sure the Chinese have as much expertise as anyone else in turning a lab result into a production line.
Probably more, in fact, since they appear to be the world's production line. :(
The politicians have fucked up the country really badly this time, even by their standards, so the need to rally their core vote by any and all means possible. Blaming someone else (foreign techies) for everything and promising an easy fix is an example of such means. Other examples include "stopping the boats" and "stopping the votes". The children don't come into it. They don't vote, so no-one gives a stuff about them.
But you knew all that.
Good luck tracking down the perpetrators when their anonymity is protected ny the platform and both they and the platform are in a different jurisdiction from you.
Also note that attempts to "solve" this problem by making anonymity impossible will face a backlash from precisely the minorities you are trying to protect. In fact, it's the kind of approach favoured by Pooh bear and Putin.
It's a hard problem.
You would have thought so, but the evidence is that mis-targetted internet ads have been a thing for at least 20 years and the advertisers continue to throw good money after bad. These days it is pretty much a cliché that they are randomly distributed. Private Eye has had a running gag about it for years now and the brainlessness of Amazon's "I see you bought a wahing machine, would you like to buy ten more?" is also widely mocked. *Everyone* knows that the system doesn't work. The web giants are not deceiving the advertisers, the advertisers are not deceiving the companies who place ads, and the population don't believe that the ad is aimed at them.
There is no fraud here. Just a huge waste of time and money by people who have realised that they can inflate the price of absolutely everything by a tiny amount and then cream that off to pay their salary.
"It's also a good idea to monitor dark-web forums for credential dumps, in case yours are listed."
How does a normal user do that without opening themselves up to even more risk? Got a list of "dark web forums" that we can safely browse and that the miscreants will happily carry on using once they realise that a particular forum is listed?
More likely is that retired person might actually know enough shit and care little enough about their career that they actually do the job properly. You know, flagging up bad practice, making recommendations, and generally being a pain in the butt for their managers.
If someone forked to a private GH repo, with their own non-GH repo in between, it would probably be impossible for the original owners to know that their code had been slurped.
So I dare say one could add such a licence condition, but it would be pretty pointless.
Maybe some future version of the AI could read the licence and adhere to it.
They should feed it the whole code and ask it to find as many contradictions as it can. Then we feed the output to the politicians and tell them to stop prattling on with ideological battles and start fixing the shit that they've foisted upon us.
Repeat for all tax codes and the respective politicians, obviously.
It has. You can disable NTLM across your network with a couple of policy settings. This came in pre-pandemic. If you haven't done it yet, presumably you have some third-party apps that depend on it, still, 3 or more years after you should have started looking for an alternative.