Cryptography nerd
Fediverse accounts;
[email protected] (main)
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lemmy moderation account: @[email protected] - [email protected]
Bluesky: natanael.bsky.social
I’m told sentiment analysis with LLM is a whole thing, but maybe this clever new technology doesn’t do what it’s promised to do? 🤔
Tldr make it discourage unhealthy use, or else at least be honest in marketing and tell people this tech is a crapshot which probably is lying to you
You can have multiple layers of detection mechanisms, not just within the LLM the user is talking to
Newspapers depends on being corporations with free speech rights. IMHO the limits should rather be around stuff like lobbying and stricter overall requirements on truthfulness.
All you need to argue is that its operators have responsibility for its actions and should filter / moderate out the worst.
Not sure it’s enough.
Airplane engines are about 35% efficient. Maybe you can push it upwards 50% with state of the art designs.
Fuel cells hits about 60-70%, state of the art can maybe hit 85% (and the electric engines can be efficient enough to be part of the error margin in this equation). Best case you’re halving wasted energy. That means you need AT LEAST half the energy density, or else you’re carrying more fuel mass for the same flight. Might be tolerable if it is at least cheaper, but you’re also adding stress and wear as you do.
Self hosting then
The Proton owner is Trump-y. Tuta is another option
At least this can save a lot of time for those tax accountants
“please ponder your verification orb”
Will they be using a modern encryption protocol this time?
Weird idealist types.
Getting humans to do their work reliably is a whole science and lots of fields can achieve it
That says more about you.
There are a lot of cases where you can not know if it worked unless you have expertise.
Bad joke
Because if you don’t know how to tell when the AI succeeded, you can’t use it.
To know when it succeeded, you must know the topic.
The calculator is predictable and verifiable. LLM is not
The standards are royalty free, so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything
Well trained humans are still more consistent and more predictable and easier to teach.
There’s no guarantee LLM will get reliably better at everything. It still makes some mistakes today that it did when introduced and nobody knows how to fix that yet
Then you want them to advertise NIST PQ standards
… Which is also not necessary for single user password databases anyway
Even then the summarizer often fails or bring up the wrong thing 🤷
You’ll still have trouble comparing changes if it needs to look at multiple versions, etc. Especially parsing changelogs and comparing that to specific version numbers, etc
Not in the winter, lol.