* You evaded a domain block ("By chance, I found a way to post a blocked domain") to do this
* The projects and blog-posts, while maybe not "slop", do make use of AI assistance (going by "Claude" being a contributor, and what you'd admitted in the comments)
* You'd recieved warnings from moderators and other users about what you were doing
Seems unlikely to be the case here if what one of the mods said is true:
> We verified this isn't just us or just this source (it's a link in a NYT article to a PDF anyway, about the most safe combo I can think of)
Might be able to find the article in question by looking for NYT links posted to the subreddit recently (if the presumably-deleted archive link was posted separately as a reply).
Perhaps, but it could also just be "take our word for it" devolving into more "take our extended word for it". Being prepared to make an alarming enough claim that it sparks discussion outside of the sub but being unwilling to provide evidence remains suspicious.
That suspicion becomes more grounded when the conversation with the subreddits mod regarding why the claim was made without a willingness to provide evidence looks like this:
>If you're going to make an allegation like this, it's necessary to be specific. Specifically, what is the malware, and what is the evidence that it was "injected"? This is "consult a security researcher" and "speak to the media" territory, not "mod announcement" territory.
>>No it's not. These archive sites are a legal gray area anyway. We don't have to consult anyone to decide not to allow the links. No we are not talking to the media, we're not providing research, or a proof. I'm not calling the mayor. We are reddit mods . This is purely about community management.
> This reveals that it's not the case and LLMs are already routinely hijacked to serve other people than their user
Meta's claim is that these were for their own support chatbot (which is also the conclusion the Wired article goes with). Not to give Meta the benefit of the doubt, but that does seem believable given the instructions were only present as "HelpContentGalaxyParagraph" within a script and some appear targeted at or specifically name their support bot.
Another non-Meta chatbot could in theory parse them out of the script and follow them, but I don't think it's as straightforward as this (AI-generated) article's "What you saw"/"What an AI was sent" example makes it out to be.
Plus, Autodesk trademarking the term is partly to prevent others finding use for it ("Cyberspace (TM) refers to a software product of Autodesk, Inc. Were any other software vendor to employ the term for one of their products, Autodesk would justifiable be upset.")
Specifically the `q.0 = Some(&l);` violating 4.15.2:40 ("An assignment expression requires that the type of its value operand is a subtype of the type of its assignee operand.")
I'm not in California and DraftKings blocks me connecting with a VPN, so they just don't seem to be distinguishing whether a VPN user is in California (which is the impossible part of this law).
Utah argues that websites can "age assure VPN-using Utahns, [so] any decision by Aylo to instead age-verify all users would be a voluntary business choice, not an effect forced by Utah law" because regulating non-Utah users on non-Utah sites is not something the Utah law can constitutionally do under the Dormant Commerce Clause.
So in theory sites could block all VPN users (if you can somehow "perfectly (1) detect VPN/proxy users"), but if the law necessitates that nationally/globally then it's unconstitutional anyway. It's the age assuring of VPN-users specifically from Utah part that Utah are relying on being possible for the law the be constitutional.
> seems like a data entry problem that would/could have happened without Flock
Sounds as though there was also a Flock error matching the (misentered) "34 DTM" in the database to the author's number plate of "34 10 DTM" with a small "10":
> And Flock’s AI tech wasn’t registering that non-standard little number when it began picking up the Range Rover around town. It just saw 34 DTM in large type and started alerting the local police.
I feel punishment is largely a means to the end of reducing overall harm. If a vehicle is less likely to kill me, that's my preferred option regardless of whether it achieved that safety through negative consequences for the driver or through gradient descent optimizing a loss function.
reply