MountingSuspicion
@MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
- Comment on Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text, with two exceptions 6 days ago:
This was only done because the editors pushed to minimize AI involvement. There’s a comment here already mentioning that: lemmy.world/comment/22826863
- Comment on Google tipped off authorities to illicit images in Canadian doctor's account, search warrants say 6 days ago:
The images I am referring to are likely distinct from the ones in the title as they are from his iPhone and Google is who reported him. Regardless in the article it says the detective looked at one of the Google reported images. Whether they just referenced a known hash I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s pretty well known that FAANG scan basically all images for CSAM nowadays.
- Comment on Google tipped off authorities to illicit images in Canadian doctor's account, search warrants say 6 days ago:
The detective alleges that that photograph and others she examined appeared to be stored in a folder on the iPhone titled “Girls I Drugged And Raped.”
- Comment on Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US 1 week ago:
Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.
I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.
More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.
- Comment on Facing the music: Detecting dangerous driving through AI facial analysis— New technology could change how drunk and dangerous drivers are identified 1 week ago:
Wow. What a terrible idea. There was a woman who was sent to jail in a different state for several months and lost her house, car, and dog because AI misidentified her and cops didn’t give a fuck. Cops should need a warrant for facial recognition at the very least, if it’s allowed at all. Can’t wait for “give me a smile” to be codified into law.
- Comment on Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming as We Know It 2 weeks ago:
If you sandbox anything it’ll be safer than otherwise. Not really sure what you’re suggesting. I would still want the code reviewed regardless of the safety measures in place.
I wrote a program that basically auto organizes my files for me. Even if an AI was sandboxed and only had access to the relevant files and had no delete privileges, I would still want the code reviewed. Otherwise it could move a file into a nonsensical location and I would have to go through all possible folders to find it. Someone would have to make the interfaces/gateways and also review the code. There’s no way to know how it’s working, so there’s no way to know IF it’s working, until the code is reviewed. Regardless of how detailed you prompt, AI will generate something that possibly (currently very likely) needs to be adjusted. I’m not going to take an AIs raw output and run it assuming the AI did it properly, regardless of the safety measures.
- Comment on Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming as We Know It 2 weeks ago:
While I personally don’t like AI, I do think it is changing things. I don’t think it’s ever safe to run code without oversight from an actual programmer, but AI will likely affect the number of programmers being hired in a non negligible way.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.
Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I’m not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Per RAINN, 57% of perpetrators are white. I’ll charitably imagine you’re attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy in gender vs race selection, but you’re perpetuating racist and xenophobic stereotypes. White men commit rape at more than twice the rate of black men, and naturally born citizens commit crimes at rates higher than both documented and undocumented immigrants.
If you want to make the case that it’s a discriminatory policy, you’re welcome to do so, but tying it to false perceptions of race is probably not the best move. It’s coming off as reactionary at best.
- Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 3 weeks ago:
Thank you for this comment. I have backups I tested on implementation and rummaged through two years ago after a weird corruption issue, but not once since. I still get alerts about them, so I just assume they’re fine, but first thing Monday I’m gonna test them. I feel stupid for not having implemented regular checks already, but will do so now.
- Comment on We messed up with the Windows 12 article. What we got wrong and how it happened 3 weeks ago:
Yea, I mentioned in my comment that there was a confluence of issues, but the article does point out that the AI translation made the statement more definitive.
- Comment on We messed up with the Windows 12 article. What we got wrong and how it happened 3 weeks ago:
I thought this was a very well written, transparent article that took accountability as seriously as it should. I am still not sure why people are using AI for translation when translation software already existed. People mention that AI is more context aware, but I feel like when you saw those friction points in old translation software it prompted you to look further into the context, whereas AI will just make an executive decision and people feel like it must be right because it’s AI. I guess it’s possible old language software, or even a translator, would have done the same thing, but I still think people would have less inherent trust in the old software alone. I do want to point out that this AI issue was just a small part of the problem and they addressed plenty of other issues and how they plan to remedy those.
- Comment on A stolen Gemini API key turned a $180 bill into $82,000 in two days 3 weeks ago:
Yes, I saw that, I just didn’t see them say that’s what happened to them. If that’s what happened then this should be an open and shut case. Like I said initially, Google is a bad company doing bad things and this change was an objectively greedy and evil thing.
- Comment on A stolen Gemini API key turned a $180 bill into $82,000 in two days 3 weeks ago:
Google is a bad company with bad policies, but I’d love to have them explain what caused the compromise. They dispute that it was uploaded publicly to GitHub, but don’t seem to provide any information as to what happened. They also didn’t have 2fa on, which is strange to hear because AWS (they’re using Google) required 2fa on all accounts at least a year ago, regardless of permissions if memory serves. Really sorry to hear this happened to them, and the fact you can’t set a hard cap on spend makes Google the party ultimately responsible here, but I’d appreciate having more information on the actual cause.
- Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes 3 weeks ago:
I get where you’re coming from, but I think it’s important that ars has held this person accountable. They have a journalistic standard they are sticking to, which is that there should be no AI use, and there are repercussions for people who don’t abide. There’s not an extremely large cohort that is willing to spend more to avoid AI, but I am certainly part of it, and seeing ars hold this person accountable helps me know that I can trust and patronize them ethically. There are businesses out there unwilling to acquiesce to an AI first narrative, and I’m just worried that elements of doomerism are going to make people unwilling to believe those companies when they have every reason to believe them.
- Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes 3 weeks ago:
Extremely sorry to hear that is happening. For what it’s worth, reports like this are not uncommon now:
- Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes 3 weeks ago:
There’s an assumption that there has been an increased workload requested of them that I don’t have a reason to believe. That person has been a writer for them for years and since they don’t use AI as a rule, I don’t know why they would have increased expected output from their staff. I’m not saying that never happens, I just don’t believe that’s what happened in this case as there is no evidence to suggest that. I appreciate you explaining that comment though.
- Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes 3 weeks ago:
What was the damned if you don’t in this scenario? Seems more like damned if do, best if you don’t in this situation.
- Comment on Ars Technica Fires Reporter After AI Controversy Involving Fabricated Quotes 3 weeks ago:
I don’t work at Ars, and maybe you know something I don’t, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they’re one of the companies doing that. It seems like they are pretty open about how they do not allow AI to be used in the process. Have they said something to indicate otherwise and I just misssed it?
- Comment on AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations 4 weeks ago:
AI is suicidal because it was trained on the internet and we’re all depressed here.
- Comment on Is The New York Times a games company? A familiar debate continues 4 weeks ago:
Really wish people would get off twitter, but if this tweet from the link is accurate then I think it explains a bit:
I don’t think this is the correct read of the chart, the NYT literally stopped offering a News-only subscription for new customers — the News product is the tentpole feature of all the bundles.
- Comment on Dutch cops arrest man after sending him confidential files by mistake 5 weeks ago:
This is an translated excerpt from the article:
The man decided to download the files. Police told the man to stop this and delete the files. The man indicated that he would only stop and renounce it if he ‘would get something in return’. Therefore, the police have decided to arrest the man and confiscate his data carriers to secure the files again and prevent distribution.
If you are sent a download link, while you know you should get an upload link, it is clearly told not to download and choose to download the files anyway, then you may be guilty of computer breach. The recipient can reasonably assume that the download link and the files shared with it are not intended for him.
The police have no indication that the files are further distributed. The protocol surrounding a data breach is followed. Police are conducting further investigations.
It does not seem like a power imbalance allows them to just roll up and arrest him. It seems like they have a legal ability to ask him to remove the files and since he did not they have a legal right to charge him/confiscate the files. I generally don’t want to assume public sentiment, but I personally think it’s understandable that some government documents (those pertaining to open investigations) are subject to protections that other documents might not be. For what it’s worth, if someone sent me their digital information they wouldn’t have to ask me to delete it because I would not have saved it in the first place and I certainly would not have asked for payment to delete it if I somehow accidentally downloaded it.
- Comment on Reddit's human content wins amid the AI flood 5 weeks ago:
Reddit had a lot of really friendly “femme leaning” communities. Especially the smaller ones. If you were only going to Reddit for nail painting and wedding inspiration it was actually really wholesome. Those communities tended to be 1) very well modded 2) “easy” to mod 3) not fun to troll. There’s a little grey area on if someone is offering good faith critique, but if you’ve commented twice and neither have been positive you lose the privilege to comment. It can create a bit of a hugbox, but it’s much preferred to the opposite.
I really like my experience with the fediverse so far, but I really miss the experience of those positive “femme” spaces. It’s a very different feeling and I haven’t gotten it from the fediverse yet. Not that we’re not empathetic, just that it’s a different space.
- Comment on Dutch cops arrest man after sending him confidential files by mistake 5 weeks ago:
The wrong he did was the extortion. If you feel like people being extorted should not be able to charge people attempting to extort them because they created the conditions for extortion then I think we fundamentally disagree on how law and order should function. Doing something bad/illegal is wrong. Extorting someone for doing something bad/illegal is also wrong. I don’t think you should be able to blame someone for making it easy to extort them as a defense for extortion.
- Comment on Dutch cops arrest man after sending him confidential files by mistake 5 weeks ago:
That’s a little unfair. If I leave my door open while I’m gone and someone comes in and makes copies of my personal documents I guess that’s somewhat my fault, but they did something they knew they shouldn’t have. The guy is basically extorting the police and asking for taxpayer money to delete information he was informed he should not have. It seems like he was notified and given time to comply but chose to demand money. I don’t know the exact content of the files, but there’s a lot of potential harm that can come from certain documents being public. I’m not pro police, but the guy seems to be clearly in the wrong here.
- Comment on Spotify says its best developers haven't written a line of code since December, thanks to AI 1 month ago:
Is the idea that they’re somehow reviewing the code on their phone during their commute? Or are they just pushing to prod without even glancing at it? Why bother with the middle man. Just have the AI push it. What a stupid admission.
- Comment on An AI Agent Published a Hit Piece on Me 1 month ago:
I used this library all the time. Glad to see they’re keeping the bar high. Extremely concerning that this happened, but the HN comments bring up a good point that the hit piece was probably not an autonomous decision by the AI. The human likely directed it to do that. That seems especially true when you see that a human later tried to make the same change and was pretty salty about it being rejected and their overall GitHub seems suspect. The best part about the whole thing in my opinion is that the “blog” the AI started has a copyright attribution to the AI. I know that’s just a thing blogs have, but it’s funny to see considering we all know AI cannot hold a copyright and the output cannot be copyrighted.
- Comment on AI agent writes blog post to shame a developer after he refused it's code contribution. 1 month ago:
That’s… not a thing? A human cannot “replace the human aspects with pure OpenClaw.” What would that even mean? A human can take credit for things AI has done, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that they took credit for something. They’re not bootstrapping or a cyborg, just irresponsible.
- Comment on AI agent writes blog post to shame a developer after he refused it's code contribution. 1 month ago:
Damn. Couldn’t be me. Maybe I’m a bad contributor (yes) but I will definitely pop in to fix something that’s bugging me and then never contribute again. I’m not adding new features though, so maybe my contributions are just never significant enough for me to feel any ownership of. I think it’s a lot to expect people to continue to contribute just because they did so once. That would potentially make it less likely people contribute when they can. I’m certainly not going to address an open ticket if it makes me responsible for rewriting the feature when people decide to port or refactor the whole project two years later.
- Comment on A new survey of 3,335 public servants across 10 countries found that 70% say they use AI, but confidence lags 1 month ago:
This was put out by a lobbying group that happens to be pro AI, just for everyone’s information.