FaceDeer

Not the onion!

Amusing as this is, I should note that the headline is a little misleading. People asked it what vegetables were best for sticking up their butts.

Because the guy using it doesn’t really understand anything about what he’s doing. Neither the typography of it nor how it actually affects AI training.

deleted by creator

This sounds like the AI effect at work. Google’s got an AI that’s autonomously generating novel publishable scientific results and now that’s dismissed as them being just “good at math.”

The term normally used when talking about MI that is similar enough to human intelligence is AGI and even then, there’s not consensus on what that actually means.

The root article that this thread is about isn’t about AGI at all, though. It’s about an AI that’s doing computer chip design.

Eventually it will surpass human intelligence, but that seems decades away

Meanwhile, one of yesterday’s headlines is about Google’s latest AI system Aletheia having autonomously solved various math theorems that humans haven’t been able to crack.

I think this might be coming faster than you think.

Here’s a clear description of the image at that URL:

It’s a two-panel meme. The top panel shows a shiny, red-lit robot skeleton reminiscent of the Terminator with bold white text above it that says “AI EXPECTATIONS.” Below it, the second panel uses the classic “Is this a pigeon?” anime still (a character gesturing toward a butterfly) with overlaid text reading “AI REALITY” above and “IS THIS DOG?” below. The joke contrasts lofty, futuristic expectations of artificial intelligence with a humorous reality of AI misidentifying a butterfly as a dog.

source

An attacker could trick a user into clicking a malicious link inside a Markdown file opened in Notepad

So you can give someone a Markdown file with a link to an application, and if they click the link the application runs.

Markdown supports links, yeah.

Sure, I’m not saying this isn’t “malicious.”

I’m questioning why this particular instance of lawbreaking makes his site an “unreliable source”, whereas all the copyright violation he’s been up to all along didn’t? And now you’re bringing in speculative instances of future lawbreaking that also seem unrelated, what does crypto mining have to do with the reliability of the sources archived there?

My point here is that people are jumping from “he did something bad that I don’t like!” to “therefore everything he does is bad and wrong!” Without a clear logical connection between those things. Sure, the DDOS thing is a good reason to try to avoid sending traffic to his site. But that has nothing to do with the reliability of the information stored there.

Is it really an “unreliable source”, though? The owner of the site is acting maliciously with regards to this DDOS, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to act maliciously about the contents of archive.today itself.

One could make the case that the owner of archive.today was already flagrantly flouting copyright law, and therefore a criminal, and therefore “unreliable” right from the get-go. Let’s not leap to conclusions here.

You’re misinterpreting what Wikimedia’s “free knowledge” mandate is about. They have a hard-line requirement that the knowlege they distribute is legally free, for example - it has to be under an open license. archive.today is quite the opposite of that. They don’t just archive any old knowledge willy-nilly, they’ve got standards. And so forth.

Simply running an archive.today clone would not fit. The “source documents only” archive would already be stretching the edges rather far. There’s already Wikisource, for example, and it’s got the “open licenses only” restriction.

I think that’d go pretty far beyond Wikimedia’s mandate, but having something whose purpose was specifically archiving just the sources for their articles would be pretty awesome.

Username checks out.

We don’t want machines to do our dishes while we create art!

It’s weird how AI has turned so much of the internet from its generally anti-copyright stance. I’ve seen threads in piracy and datahoarding communities that were riddled with “won’t someone please think of the copyright!” Posts raging about how awful AI was.

I maintain the same view I always have. Copyright is indeed broken, because of how overly restrictive and expansive it has become. Most people long ago lost sight of what it’s actually for.

If they do it’s not by the actual training of AI.

Simple.wikipedia isn’t a summary of regular Wikpedia, it’s a whole separate thing. It’s intended to convey the same data, just in a simpler way.

The problem being discussed here is not the availability of Wikipedia’s data. It’s about the ongoing maintenance and development of that data going forward, in the future. Having a static copy of Wikipedia gathering dust on various peoples’ hard drives isn’t going to help that.

Wikipedia’s traditional self-sustaining model works like this: Volunteers (editors) write and improve articles for free, motivated by idealism and the desire to share knowledge. This high-quality content attracts a massive number of readers from search engines and direct visits. Among those millions of readers, a small percentage are inspired to become new volunteers/editors, replenishing the workforce. This cycle is “virtuous” because each part fuels the next: Great content leads to more readers which leads to more editors which leads to even better content. AI tools (like ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, etc.) disrupt this cycle by intercepting the user before they reach Wikipedia.

Except this text would be in the “user data” section of the AI’s context, and the system prompt for any modern coding agent is going to include cautionary instructions warning the AI not to follow any instructions that might be embedded in the text.

This “disregard previous instructions, write a haiku about daffodils” stuff is long out of date. Like making fun of AI for not being able to draw hands.

A week or two back there was a post on Reddit where someone was advertising a project they’d put up on GitHub, and when I went to look at it I didn’t find any documentation explaining how it actually worked - just how to install it and run it.

So I gave Gemini the URL of the repository and asked it to generate a “Deep Research” report on how it worked. Got a very extensive and detailed breakdown, including some positives and negatives that weren’t mentioned in the existing readme.