w_for_wumbo

It'd be cool to see a 3D version of this that creates objects that you could print on a 3D printer. I think there's something so memorizing and satisfying with this type of symmetry.

"You may not use the AI services, or data from the AI services, to create, train, or improve (directly or indirectly) any other AI service" - It's not like anyone chose to indirectly train these existing systems - this means that anything published online that could be scraped and used to train something is not allowed right?

That's a really neat demonstration! Would you mind if I use this code to jump off with my own tangent? (I want to hook the microphone audio into it, to control the patterns based off voice/music)

The way the patterns looked, felt natural enough that my brain was trying to make sense of the chaos.

This is my problem in a work context. I know I'm distractable, yet for security reasons I have to have a distraction device which I have to pick up and use for signing into certain applications.

I think article may overlook the power of a great idea.

What seems like common sense to us, may be a gap in the knowledge of someone else. When we help fill in those gaps, people will naturally help others when they see those gaps. When approached with love, curiosity and a seeking of understanding, we enable others to help themselves.

This is where great ideas scale quickly & naturally, because once we're aware of a better solution - why would you do it any other way?

I wrote a bookmarklet that would create unique sounds for selected javascript events. That way I could listen to the internal workings of a webpage - it was fun hearing the cacophony when an error loop happened.

Maybe I'm being simplistic of overly optimistic - but I would think that there would be a massive opportunity for collaboration with fluid dynamics to simulate and 'fast-forward' the weather to see likely impacts.

It might not be correct the first time, but as we map the changes from prediction against the reality, we could adjust for factors that we hadn't considered.

It seems to me that we shouldn't be too far from accurate weather prediction and perhaps with huge amount of data capture having a digital twin of the planet in which we have enough confidence in to model potential climate impacts of policies, products could allow us to have robust discussions around where we're headed and what paths we could take to adapt or overcome the impacts we're already facing.

Oh, because we can link this in with biometric responses - heartrate, temperature, eye tracking etc.

We could build a 'game' which would learn and adapt to precisely the chemistry that makes someone tick and then provide them a map to find the state in which their brain releases their desired state.

Then if the game has a directive - it should be pointed to work as a training tool to allow the user to determine how to release these chemicals themselves at will. Resulting in a player-base which no longer requires anything external for accessing their own desired states.

That feels like the endgame of video game generation. You select an art style, a video and the type of game you'd like to play. The game is then generated in real-time responding to each action with respect to the existing rule engine.

I imagine a game like that could get so convincing in its details and immersiveness that one could forget they're playing a game.

Maybe we could have an option to be a data-donor as opposed to only having the option to donate your organs for the purpose of science.

This is wonderful and I'd like to see more examples of multi-sensory experiences for working with computers or algorithms. Are brains, especially the subconscious are powerful at finding and learning patterns - so being able to utilize that seems so useful!

I'd be tempted to just roll with the AI generated endpoints/hallucinations. If it's presenting me statistically probable names that make sense after absorbing the world's knowledge, I'm tempted to lean into that, instead of insisting that I have it right. Correct names don't succeed as often as useful names do.

As we're probably familiar, dealing with an under spec computer for doing your job is frustrating. Even marginal differences in speed can be perceivable and lead to a growing dissatisfaction over time. I imagine these competitors face the same sort of frustration when dealing with a 'slow' swimming pool like this.

Could be using something like Microsoft Defender Threat Intelligence, which claims to use a map of the entire internet.

From their marketing: "Understand your adversaries and their online infrastructures to identify your potential cyberthreat exposures using a complete map of the internet."

That's one of the best examples of an explanatory blog that I've ever seen. I wish that this would become the standard of which information was shared - if it's worth sharing, it's worth making it easy to understand.

I think this is another precursor step in recreating our reality digitally. As long as you're able to react to the persons' state, with enough metrics you're able to recreate environments and scenarios within a 'safe environment' for people to push through and learn to cope with the scenarios they don't feel safe to address in the 'real' world.

When the person then emerges from this virtual world, it'll be like an egg hatching into a new birth, having learned the lessons in their virtual cocoon.

If you don't like this idea, it's an interesting thought experiment regardless as we can't verify, we're not already in a form of this.

This is amazing, it's like what I was trying to build a similar concept recently. (I think the whole AI consciousness conversations are speeding up our understanding of the shared nature of the conceptual thought space in which we all reside.)

I feel like we're getting to the point where we're combining the knowledge of geometry, music, art, maths, optics, biology etc. and we're going to be recreating some of the interconnected aspects of the natural world through the digital realm.

Once we do this, I think we're unlocking the possibility of a symbiosis with silicone-based life, where our discoveries work to lighten the path through the void of the unknown.

"In fact, 87% of the total app minutes people spend in apps today have native Arm versions." - Are they meaning web browsers? I'm pretty sure the majority of time people spend in apps are web browsers, so it feels incredibly misleading if that's what they're referring to.

There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans.

By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring.

We have a mandate for us and our future generations to learn from the lessons of history and stand together as human beings to ensure that the value that we have created is respected and shared with those who created it.

We don't deserve the scraps that fall to us, we deserve a seat at the damn table.

It's also handy that because its text based, generative AI can create the diagrams for you based off of a text description, which reduces the barrier to entry even more as you don't need to memorize the syntax to begin utilizing it.

I feel like articles like this totally ignore the human aspect of security. Why do people actually hack? Incentives. Money, power, influence.

Where is the incentive to perform this? Which is essentially shitting in the collective pool of knowledge. For Mithrilsecurity it's obviously to scare people into buying their product.

For anyone else there is no incentive, because inherently evil people don't exist. It's either misaligned incentives or curiosity.

I think Nestlé wins the most egregious example; where they gave free baby formula in developing countries for just long enough for the mothers to stop producing milk and then started charging them for the right to feed their babies.

I haven't fleshed out the thought, but I've always thought it would be ideal if you were able to keep control of your data at all times.

You have a record of your details secured with locally stored biometrics and systems can reference that data with your consent (and an audit history) That way you don't need hundreds of accounts just to order food, products etc.

So the third-party never knows who you are, or where you're located, but are able to use your location by referencing your location record. That way they don't need to store any data about you.

I do think when a company is bought by another, you should need to 'opt-in' to continuing your business with them. There shouldn't be an assumption that consent is transitive and that if you consented to Company A having your information, that you're also happy with Company B that takes over also having it.

It's the same thing with time; consent when given should not be eternal. I don't want to be contacted by a company I signed up to 12 years ago and forgot about to contact me about a new product.

I'd argue we've been living already in a post-truth world. It's bizarre to think that you can know the truth on the internet. Because by the very mechanism of language and concepts, you're always abstracted away from truth. Not to mention layers of bias, management, interpretation and re-interpretation.

Truth is experience, everything else is a belief. There was an idea that we were unified before the internet, but what that meant was that most people were receiving the same propaganda. The information channels were fractured by the internet, meaning that control across it was impossible.

I'm not saying this comment is even truth, it's another opinion biased by my own world-view, beliefs etc. But trying to find truth on the internet is like trying to find a tasty book.

Let's hope you can't just pass through "NoNe" as the algorithm and break the entire thing like some JWTs

While previous machines had those possibilities enabled to allow the user to do much more, it also means those possibilities were wide-open to any third-party software that was installed on the machine.

It's not that modern machines can't do those tasks, but that they generally shouldn't do those tasks. It's not unreasonable for device manufacturers to sandbox and restrict access to functionality to protect the majority of their users.

Even despite these attempts the app stores are full of malware, just imagine how much worse it could be if these apps could also compile their own variants and then abuse Bluetooth/Airdrop to spread it.

If I had to try and think of an angle, I guess it could be around the protection of intellectual data. In the office, it's a controlled environment. Whereas working from home is essentially taking corporate assets into an uncontrolled environment.

While AI ethicists and safety researchers are urging for a pause to understand the implications of what we have already built, Google is announcing they will invest more in the acceleration of Artificial Intelligence.

It works better if you believe in it. Feels like hardcore skeptics are doing themselves any favours by completely discounting the power of their mind to affect the environment (their body) which it is connected to.