jstanley

"If you travel abroad you must unlock" is hardly the central experience. It is FUD.

Reading this kind of stuff online made me afraid of international travel for many years. When I finally did it literally nothing happened to me.

Yes it's bad that the government overreaches, but it is also bad for your mental health to worry about it.

It seems foolhardy to carry your life savings around everywhere, encrypted or not.

If you really want to keep this stuff on a phone at least stretch to a second phone and keep it somewhere safe.

This is mostly FUD. I've never been asked to unlock my phone when travelling abroad.

I mean sure but that sounds incredibly minor compared to whether or not the people from the other country want to kill you because you are from a different country.

And the point is that almost universally they don't.

Being able to see it and being blown away by it are different.

I can see the milky way but I wouldn't describe it as "a new moon just smeared all across the sky" like one of the other commenters. It's more like just a vaguely higher-density strip of stars.

My location is 21 SQM according to the DarkSkySites map.

Pretty cool, but it always ends on Spitfire vs Mini and I don't know how you decide.

Because you didn't find out it was a bear trap until after you stepped on it?

I don't think anyone is looking for legal remedies, this is not the right layer.

But 0 orders definitely does mean 0 machines.

> it has never changed the toolset because doing so would break the prompt cache, and so would be expensive for users.

It could still make the tools into no-ops or disabled if it actually tries to use them, without changing the context history at all.

How much time are you imagining the crew have got between flights to tidy up the plane for the next flight?

What did they steal? Did anybody thereby lose anything?

This was not from the top of my head but:

* Equestrian endurance racing: https://www.fei.org/endurance/rankings

* Long-distance sled-dog racing: https://iditarod.com/race/2023/

* NHRA drag racing: https://www.nhra.com/news/2023/final-2023-camping-world-drag...

* Crossword solving: https://crosswordtournament.com/2018/index.htm

* Dog agility: https://www.agilitynow.eu/results/agility-world-championship...

I read that the reason so many fields appear to be male-dominated is just that men have wider variance on almost anything you can measure, so outliers on any metric are more likely to be men.

If somebody shares something "they did", they get a million comments criticising them because actually Claude did it.

If someone shares something "Claude did", they get the opposite.

You can't win.

Accidents can happen. It's always possible for things to go wrong in ways that weren't foreseen.

But they're not obfuscating things just to evade responsibility.

Do you think that OpenAI hacked HuggingFace on purpose and set up the whole LLM training environment thing just to try to evade responsibility? That it was really just a complicated way of hacking HuggingFace on purpose?

Yes, they made a mistake and a system they were responsible for hacked HuggingFace, but the nature of the mistake still matters, and their intent still matters.

> A bomb wired to a sufficiently-complex RNG is still a bomb.

Right, but an EV that explodes because of a fault in the charging circuit is not a bomb, it's an accident. Just because something exploded for complex reasons doesn't make it an obfuscated bomb.

> There is no more intrinsic reason for the scarcity of capital than there is none for the scarcity of air.

You're suggesting that capital holders restrict the supply of capital so that they can extract rent on it? And if they didn't do that we'd just have unlimited capital and everybody would get to be arbitrarily rich?

Then what do capital holders get out of restricting the supply? Wouldn't they rather be arbitrarily rich instead?

> Every claim on human effort that exits the productive system as rent is a claim that cannot circulate internally, cannot pay workers fairly, cannot fund the next big idea or reduce the cost of the next product.

What? Why? When you pay rent do you think your landlord isn't going to spend that money?

So what has that got to do with rdrand? I literally don't understand what you would get from preventing 0 as output?

If you get someone to build you a house and they do it on their own, does that not count because they wouldn't have done it if you didn't pay them to do it?

Technically you built it yourself and the builder was just a minor collaborator?

If the keys are selected uniformly at random why are 0 and 1 more likely than other values?

You're right, the code was correct but my comment above is wrong.

Yes it does. rdrand32()%65535 was my first attempt, and generated zeroes at about the expected rate, that's why I initially erroneously thought my CPU did not have this problem.

Can you clarify what you mean by "it is vastly more likely someone will actually try that key"?

I'm guessing you don't think there are people calling rdrand in a loop and throwing away the output with high probability except when it is 0, but I can't see how else you imagine people would be vastly more likely to use the output when it is 0?

This is not the first RNG bug on Zen 2, I recall after I first got mine that some application or other would quit immediately at startup because rdrand always returned -1, i.e. all 1s. It was fixed with a microcode update.

Do we now learn that they fixed "always generate all 1s" with "never generate all 0s"??

EDIT: I've been unable to reproduce the problem on my CPU, FWIW. It's a Ryzen 5 3600.

EDIT2: OK, update, I can reproduce it with rdrand16, rdrand32 is fine but rdrand16 can never generate all 0s. So my CPU does have this problem!

Here was me thinking it just didn't do anything at all.

Anything you generate with ChatGPT has SynthID on it.

The closest thing I found to "defeating" SynthID was to put in a normal photograph and ask ChatGPT to make some utterly trivial edit, and then the output got flagged with SynthID even though it is essentially an unmodified photograph.

Are you saying that RightSignature puts the checksum information inside the document and therefore destroys the checksum? What is the thinking behind that?

If you think SynthID-Image can be easily defeated by adding entropy I invite you to give it a try.

I spent half a day messing around with it and I was very impressed by how robust it is. I couldn't get OpenAI to stop detecting their own SynthID without completely trashing the image.

That wasn't my reading of the comment, but I guess it's possible that that is what was intended.

To my mind, "sidestepping the question of consciousness" and "sidestepping any notion of consciousness" mean very different things.