Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
11
Comments
1087
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • What does that mean?

  • I would fall into the latter category. Lots of people are earnestly wrong without being liars.

  • It's funny. They could try—I don't know—providing some good products that sell themselves, but instead, they have decided to resort to surreptitiously selling our data and pushing more schlock at us.

    Weird that people wouldn't be excited about that...

  • I call mine a brain! 😉

  • “Mr. Ramirez explained that he had used AI before to assist with legal matters, such as drafting agreements, and did not know that AI was capable of generating fictitious cases and citations,” Judge Dinsmore wrote in court documents filed last week.

    Jesus Christ, y'all. It's like Boomers trying to figure out the internet all over again. Just because AI (probably) can't lie doesn't mean it can't be earnestly wrong. It's not some magical fact machine; it's fancy predictive text.

    It will be a truly scary time if people like Ramirez become judges one day and have forgotten how or why it's important to check people's sources yourself, robot or not.

  • I'm not really a fan of normalizing using LLMs in place of search engines. Turning it into a joke just makes it more palatable.

    SE's might be stupid, but they give you multiple options for information sources. LLMs just aggregate the internet into one response, and I don't know about you, but my experience is that the internet is full of really stupid people.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  • Yeah, but how are they gonna catch the bad guys unless they can unlock your home and make sure you're not one of them? /s

  • Yeah, the standards of the internet are just piled on top of each other. Rendering code and whatnot is the easy part. Keeping up with the standards is the hard part (or so I have read).

  • It's because it's hard to maintain a browser. There's lots of protocols and engines and other moving pieces; I remember when web pages would render in Netscape but not Internet Explorer, for example.

    We take for granted how seamless and ubiquitous the internet is, but there were lots of headaches as internet devs decided to adopt or include different users (or not).

    And now, it would take a lot of effort and market upset to convince the capitalist overlords to include something new in their dev stack. The barrier to entry is monumentally high, so most people don't bother to try inventing something better.

  • Requiring a phone number before allowing a user to use app-based TOTP.

    You don't need to know my phone number to make the secret key on my app work.

  • The YouTube Android app does that, and it's fucking annoying.

  • On a related note, if you are fortunate enough to have a public library where you live (like many of us in the US), avail yourself of their resources. They often offer a lot more than just books.

    It's perhaps not fully in the spirit of the author, since you don't solely own that either, but in the US at least, they're unique public institutions owned and run by local government, not state or federal. So in a sense, you own it insomuch as your community owns it and you continue to be a part of that community.

  • Man, Meta sure is having a lot of "errors" lately...

  • Case in point: I was required to add a phone number to an account before they would let me use an Authenticator App. If you're securing your account, the standard should be that an Auth App is agnostic of other user data. It doesn't need your phone number, it doesn't need your user ID, it just needs the secret key.

    And I was thinking all along, "What if I didn't have a phone number? Are people who can't be reached by phone just not allowed to use TOTP?"

    It's needlessly discriminatory.

  • I feel like this is a Monty Python skit in the making.

  • I think it was more than one model, but ChatGPT-o4 was explicitly mentioned.

  • Sorry, I just meant in Sweden only.

  • What's likely is they stop offering their app on the Google Play and Apple App stores (if the bill passes into law), and then people will just sideload it, leaving it up to Sweden to geoblock their IPs.