TechTakes

i googled for discussion around how a VPN can protect (or not) against a MITM attack, and came across this:

We are a small team of men trained through stoicism, currently, as newcomers to cybersecurity, we’ve taken the biggest risk by betting everything on ourselves and the leverage we can gain by sacrificing everything that is not essential.

and while the technical parts seem fine based on a surface-reading, this thick as molasses STOIC MANLINESS of their red-teaming is the silliest shit ever

(ps: read their website in the voice of foghorn leghorn, it's pretty fun)

Bringing over aio's comment from the end of last week's stubsack:

This week the WikiMedia Foundation tried to gather support for adding LLM summaries to the top of every Wikipedia article. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the community, but the WMF hasn't gotten the message, saying that the project has been "paused". It sounds like they plan to push it through regardless.

Way down in the linked wall o' text, there's a comment by "Chaotic Enby" that struck me:

Another summary I just checked, which caused me a lot more worries than simple inaccuracies: Cambrian. The last sentence of that summary is "The Cambrian ended with creatures like myriapods and arachnids starting to live on land, along with early plants.", which already sounds weird: we don't have any fossils of land arthropods in the Cambrian, and, while there has been a hypothesis that myriapods might have emerged in the Late Cambrian, I haven't heard anything similar being proposed about arachnids. But that's not the worrying part.

No, the issue is that nowhere in the entire Cambrian article are myriapods or arachnids mentioned at all. Only one sentence in the entire article relates to that hypothesis: "Molecular clock estimates have also led some authors to suggest that arthropods colonised land during the Cambrian, but again the earliest physical evidence of this is during the following Ordovician". This might indicate that the model is relying on its own internal knowledge, and not just on the contents of the article itself, to generate an "AI overview" of the topic instead.

Further down the thread, there's a comment by "Gnomingstuff" that looks worth saving:

There was an 8-person community feedback study done before this (a UI/UX text using the original Dopamine summary), and the results are depressing as hell. The reason this was being pushed to prod sure seems to be the cheerleading coming from 7 out of those 8 people: "Humans can lie but AI is unbiased," "I trust AI 100%," etc.

Perhaps the most depressing is this quote -- "This also suggests that people who are technically and linguistically hyper-literate like most of our editors, internet pundits, and WMF staff will like the feature the least. The feature isn't really "for" them" -- since it seems very much like an invitation to ignore all of us, and to dismiss any negative media coverage that may ensue (the demeaning "internet pundits").

Sorry for all the bricks of text here, this is just so astonishingly awful on all levels and everything that I find seems to be worse than the last.

Another comment by "CMD" evaluates the summary of the dopamine article mentioned there:

The first sentence is in the article. However, the second sentence mentions "emotion", a word that while in a couple of reference titles isn't in the article at all. The third sentence says "creating a sense of pleasure", but the article says "In popular culture and media, dopamine is often portrayed as the main chemical of pleasure, but the current opinion in pharmacology is that dopamine instead confers motivational salience", a contradiction. "This neurotransmitter also helps us focus and stay motivated by influencing our behavior and thoughts". Where is this even from? Focus isn't mentioned in the article at all, nor is influencing thoughts. As for the final sentence, depression is mentioned a single time in the article in what is almost an extended aside, and any summary would surely have picked some of the examples of disorders prominent enough to be actually in the lead.

So that's one of five sentences supported by the article. Perhaps the AI is hallucinating, or perhaps it's drawing from other sources like any widespread llm. What it definitely doesn't seem to be doing is taking existing article text and simplifying it.

SRD suspects a Palantir psyop

ran across this, just quickly wanted to scream infinitely

(as an aside, I've also recently (finally) joined the ACM, and clicking around in that has so far been .... quite the experience. I actually want to make a bigger post about it later on, because it is worth more than a single-comment sneer)

LLMs are the Borg, but dumb

https://zeroes.ca/@maleve/114659111863714334

https://lemmy.ml/post/31490862 pretty interesting article linked in this post, tl;dr researchers tried to get AI agents to run a simulated vending machine (which, let's be clear, is a solved problem and can be done with a normal algorithm better and cheaper) and it didn't go that great. Even if some of the test runs actually managed to earn money, they mostly devolved into the AI becoming convinced that the system doesn't work and desperately trying to email someone about it (even FBI, one memorable time). I think it illustrates quite well just how badly things would go if we left anything to AI agents. What are the odds anyone involved with pushing autoplag into everything actually reads this though...

And back on the subject of builder.ai, there’s a suggestion that it might not have been A Guy Instead, and the whole 700 human engineers thing was a misunderstanding.

https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/builder-ai-did-not-fake-ai/

I’m not wholly sure I buy the argument, which is roughly

• people from the company are worried that this sort of new will affect their future careers.
• humans in the loop would have exhibited far too high latency, and getting an llm to do it would have been much faster and easier than having humans try to fake it at speed and scale.
• there were over a thousand “external contractors” who were writing loads of code, but that’s not the same as being Guys Instead.

I guess the question then is: if they did have a good genai tool for software dev… where is it? Why wasn’t Microsoft interested in it?

Just watched MI: Final Reckoning. Spoiler free comments: I didn’t know that this and the previous film featured an AI based plot. AI doomers feature in a funny way, seemingly inspired by LW doomers, tho definitely not.