Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
"Spader Jr.’s 14-page decision excoriates the plaintiff for doing this, and said the manipulation attempt was the problem, not the possible use of AI in law."
The attempt only exists because of the threat of using AI in legal applications. If you didn't use AI, then there is no issue. If you use AI and these prompts activate, the onus is on you for using it in the first place.
That was my thought as well. The court should not be using AI to decide cases, and if they aren't then this prompt injection shouldn't be of concern. If they are, then there is an inherent vulnerability risking a miscarriage of justice that needs to be addressed. There was a story a while back about a teacher that did this with an essay assignment to their students to catch cheaters, and most students failed it because they were copying and pasting the assignment into ChatGPT. The response was "ha ha, clever teacher." Why is it different here?
In that story about the teacher, 32/35 students fell for it. The crazy thing to me wasn't that the entire college class was using AI. It was that 0-3 of them actually proof read the AI's answer before submitting it.
We're literally creating a generation of morons, speeding towards Idiocracy as if we were riding a bullet train.
Tbh idiocracy is kinda a utopia. The president assigned the smartest person to solve a problem and then changes his mind when presented with evidence.
That's... that's not what "utopia" means...
My idea of a utopia is leadership that is competent and capable of changing their opinions when faced with new information from experts in a given subject and generally have the wellbeing of their citizenry in mind
Not that I disagree with your point, but it would be closer to a student adding prompt injections to his work to change his grade. It only works if the person scoring is using AI, which they shouldn't be doing, but it's still cheating.
Closer still would be something simpler: the student hands in an essay with that white text footer, aiming for the possible grading algorithm.
The original example is nearly the same, especially since the defendant composed the document himself without AI, and deserves justice, much like the student deserved a fair grade on their paper.
Neither example is cheating.
Thats what I meant, that was my example if I understand you well.
If it wasn't cheating, then what makes the grade unfair? What about a case where the person notices it working and just silently accumulates fake grades. It's definitely a form of cheating imo.