241–250 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understanding math absolutely makes a calculator more useful to you though.
and if you work that into the parent's analogy you get the point I was making
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NSA literally has MITM proxies/interception of any traffic they want inside every major US tech company No, they don't.
It's generally accepted fact that the NSA broke HTTPS, for some of the time, for some of the services. It's unclear what they do have, but you'd be naive to assume consumer HTTPS is keeping them out. It's too complicated. Do you know everything about CA, SSL, HTTPS, and so on? You make $250k a year working on it? Do you _really_, _really_, know everything? Then you're fired because you're lying to yourself, so you're…
As for the rest of this... how many conspiracy theories are you trying to pack into a statement?
> "even if this statement is an exaggeration"
It's not an exaggeration, it is simply false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep saying this, but it's nonsensical. If I terminate TLS on the box that does processing, there's nothing to intercept. And these days (especially post-Snowden), many (most?) companies encrypt data when sending between servers within their own (private network) infrastructure.
You have no control about where TLS is terminated when you're talking to a 3p cloud service (with services you don't control/run like cloud LLM APIs). You also have no control about what spyware is installed on/around VMs you rent (and there's a lot). Also when talking about encryption between servers within datacenters you seem to be missing that in order for such multi -stage/path encryption (separate certs/keys) t…
lol, no, it's really not.
> Also when talking about encryption between servers within datacenters you seem to be missing that in order for such multi -stage/path encryption (separate certs/keys) to be possible the data first has to be decrypted at each point
Why would I want the data to be decrypted at each point and why would datacenters do that? Encrypting and decrypting data is expensive computationally, so that's not how things work at all. There's no need to decrypt data to know where it needs to go. That's why we have TCP/IP and other similar stadards.
The datacenters can maybe add another layer of encryption on top of my data as its moving around their networks, but there's absolutely no way for them to strip off my encryption.
> Yours and others' claims that things somehow got better after Snowden is just a completely baseless statement
Things didn't magically get better. A lot of people worked hard to improve the overall security posture of the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The curl experience does not suggest that hysteria is warranted, but this gives me pause. What about the Firefox experience? Or are we conveniently ignoring things that don't confirm conclusions we've already reached?
I'm not as familiar with that. I do agree that it sounded substantial. I just think that a coreutils flaw is not as substantial as a rendering engine exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let’s say you’re in Anthropic’s shoes. You see that LLM’s are getting better and better, and it’s very possible that they will have some impact on jobs in the next few years, and a very meaningful impact on cybersecurity. Is it more ethical to stay silent about these concerns, as you might have a bit of self interest? Or even if it looks a bit self interested, is it better to warn people ahead of time? I think the…
I think that Anthropic is fully absolutely unethical. And they lied a lot. They were actively trying to make the doom happen while trying to cash out maximally on doom trolling. If they were actually concerned over social impact, they would try to minimize it. They could have sell their product as a tool to be used to make economy boom, they tried to sell it on promiss to make it shrink for most people. It really doe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you have collected a lot of random bits of information from over a decade ago. I'm sure everything you say is still relevant today, especially the conspiracy nonsense. Some of us actually work in security, while others think the NSA and CIA are some magically powerful orgs. Explain how, even with the mystical Room 641A, the NSA can't break a TLS1.3 protected communication channel without either party knowing abo…
Explain to me how you are going to encrypt your LLM API calls with your let's encrypt cert. There are also multiple ways/places traffic you send to typical cloud/tech company is decrypted and can be intercepted. (Surprised I have to point this out to someone who 'actually works in security ' lol) Not to mention US tech companies fully cooperate with the NSA in many cases and are aware of this going on.
I mean, there's goal post moving and there's just building a whole new stadium across the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you describe your experience using modern AI tools that led to this conclusion? It is hard for me to wrap my head around how my perception could be so different from someone else in presumably the same or similar profession. I'm not asking this in bad faith either but I think your getting downvoted because your comment comes off as a pretty strong assertion without giving details on how you got there.
A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the technology, but rather a feature carefully engineered by those companies in order to get people hooked. Then they have all these tiny nudges like the typing animations or the "thinking..." popups before the next chat message appears. At some point you might have also…
If you are doing the kind of median enterprise tech work these tools are just good enough to do it at a relatively high level or atleast heavily augment people doing it.
Examples would be like adding routine CRUD features to APIs/ improving observability/ adding tests or accessibility features to codebases etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you describe your experience using modern AI tools that led to this conclusion? It is hard for me to wrap my head around how my perception could be so different from someone else in presumably the same or similar profession. I'm not asking this in bad faith either but I think your getting downvoted because your comment comes off as a pretty strong assertion without giving details on how you got there.
A lot of effort is spent to make the "conversation" feel just like a human-to-human interaction. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon due to the technology, but rather a feature carefully engineered by those companies in order to get people hooked. Then they have all these tiny nudges like the typing animations or the "thinking..." popups before the next chat message appears. At some point you might have also…
Things like loading indicators are basic good UI dating back to the 90s.
A/B testing and generally following user preferences might still push towards the dynamic you're describing, as it did with gpt-4o. xAI and a few other companies like Replika also intentionally created "companion"/porn AIs. But in general, natural language was previously exclusive to humans. It's completely natural that the first technology capable of it would therefore be perceived as more human. It's worth trying to resist this tendency, but it doesn't require evil intent on the part of the creators.