Oh, that’s really cool. I hope there’s more linkage between the twitter-like and reddit-like islands of the fediverse in the future; I’m somewhat interested in reading the former but it seems to be complicated to actually get federation with it.

In the US, you mean? From the top of my mind, advocating for more market freedom - unrestricted capitalism is a mixed bag generally, but the Biden administration was price-fixing insurance in the wake of California fires, which is a degree of economical illiteracy approaching Soviet Union levels.

Sure, in Firefox itself it wasn’t a severe vulnerability. It’s way worse on standalone PDF readers, though:

In applications that embed PDF.js, the impact is potentially even worse. If no mitigations are in place (see below), this essentially gives an attacker an XSS primitive on the domain which includes the PDF viewer. Depending on the application this can lead to data leaks, malicious actions being performed in the name of a victim, or even a full account take-over. On Electron apps that do not properly sandbox JavaScript code, this vulnerability even leads to native code execution (!). We found this to be the case for at least one popular Electron app.

Huh? What do you mean “if”? Such a PDF vulnerability literally did happen a few months ago; fixed in Firefox v.126: https://codeanlabs.com/blog/research/cve-2024-4367-arbitrary-js-execution-in-pdf-js/.

There’s no real need for pirate ai when better free alternatives exist.

There’s plenty of open-source models, but they very much aren’t better, I’m afraid to say. Even if you have a powerful workstation GPU and can afford to run the serious 70B opensource models at low quantization, you’ll still get results significantly worse than the cutting-edge cloud models. Both because the most advanced models are proprietary, and because they are big and would require hundreds of gigabytes of VRAM to run, which you can trivially rent from a cloud service but can’t easily get in your own PC.

The same goes for image generation - compare results from proprietary services like midjourney to the ones you can get with local models like SD3.5. I’ve seen some clever hacks in image generation workflows - for example, using image segmentation to detect a generated image’s face and hands and then a secondary model to do a second pass over these regions to make sure they are fine. But AFAIK, these are hacks that modern proprietary models don’t need, because they have gotten over those problems and just do faces and hands correctly the first time.

This isn’t to say that running transformers locally is always a bad idea; you can get great results this way - but people saying it’s better than the nonfree ones is mostly cope.

Incredibly weird that this thread was up for two days without anyone posting a link to the actual answer to OP’s question, which is g4f.

Run for office? With what money?

Day ???/??? of downvoting every post with advertiser-friendly censorship in it.

I wouldn’t generally require people to “compile their findings into a report”, but in this case the messages are weirdly devoid of any checkable information and then the reddit user in question mysteriously lost a laptop full of findings, so, yeah, these claims are not compelling. I don’t think the reverse engineer in question was lying, per se, but I do think they were very wrong at first by random chance, the story gained traction, and then they were too embarrassed to admit they fucked up.

Sort of true, but the algorithm that Reddit-like platforms use is transparent and simple (it’s just based on likes and dislikes, and I think you can even look up the source for the sorting modes) and hence doesn’t directly try to feed you content that’d enrage you. I can just not read the posts about Musk and Trump, since I find most takes on the former bad and don’t care much about the latter. Meanwhile, on platforms like Twitter or Tiktok you are directly fed content out of some recommendation ML model trained on user engagement.

(There’s also subtler differences. For example, on Reddit/Lemmy/etc, if you hate a post you can dislike it, which will generally make it show up less to people. But on, say, Tumblr, not only are there no dislikes, but if you are really hate a post you can only respond to it by reposting it, therefore spreading it further among your followers! That’s an absolutely devious platform-design move that could have been invented directly by Satan himself.)

Yet, people suffering from it can lead happy and fulfilling lives.

Sure, it’s possible for a person with a severe disability to grow up happy. But when one is making a decision in real life (like having a child), one should consider an average case, not a exceptional one. And the average case for an example like Down’s Syndrome is pretty bad. It is a bit unclear how to quantify the suffering in this particular disease’s case because the main harm to the child is lifelong mental impairment and assorted physical disabilities - but it is at least going to inflict suffering on the child’s family, since caring for a child with a severe disability for their entire life isn’t exactly fun.

It is a slippery slope that, if not navigated carefully, has historically leaded to atrocities.

I don’t see the relation. You’ll notice that I’m not proposing killing off disabled people for the “improvement of society” or whatever it was that nazis called it. I am not doing this because nonconsensually killing a person is a harm to them. But deciding not to have a child isn’t the same thing as murdering a person - it’s not harming anyone who exists, and hence may well be morally better than having a child.

(Oh, I suppose you might mean that I’m arguing that there are circumstances in which it’s morally bad for a person to have a child, which is similar to nazi eugenics in that I’m deciding whether or not people should have children? In that case, my answer is that the difference is that I’m a person, not an authoritarian government, and I don’t have power (nor, indeed, the desire) to force people to obey my personal moral judgements.)

Developers usually make $50-300/hour.

That seems like an overestimate even for US. More importantly, I don’t think most open source developers earn this much money (otherwise they wouldn’t ask for tiny donations), and hence it’s not the relevant figure. If I’m wrong about this, please do tell me - I very much would like to know if the hours I occasionally spend on open-source contributions can instead earn me hundreds of dollars. ;)

Depends - do you have crypto?

carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side.

Not necessarily. Someone dying isn’t the same as someone not existing at all.* It does imply that the world would be better off if it stopped existing, and under some assumptions implies it’d be moral to, say, instantly end all of humanity. I’m not sure that these conclusions are necessarily “contrary to our instincts”.

*one reason why this has to be true, is that if we didn’t distinguish between those, then if an average life had positive value, it’d be immoral not to have as many children as possible, until the marginal value of an extra life fell to zero once again (kind of like how Malthus thought societies worked, except as a supposedly moral thing to do). That conclusion is something I do consider very contrary to my instincts.

I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define “zero” as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it’s own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.

I too am an utilitarianist, sure. I’m not sure I can possibly buy “maximum suffering and no happiness” being the zero point. I very strongly feel that there are plenty of lives that would be way worse than dying (and than never having existed, too). It’s a coherent position I think, just a very alien one to me.

That’s literally true, but the simple counterargument is that the happiness/suffering conversion coefficient is a matter of one’s values and not particularly up for debate - so there’s nothing incoherent about, say, the position that your child living a happy fullfilling life for a thousand years but stubbing their toe once is enough suffering to make their life net negative.

This is a great comment. I’ll add that anyone thinking about disability ethics should read Two Arms and a Head, lest they start taking too seriously the idea that disabilities have no effect on quality of life.

I agree that there’s a lot of space between “considered disabled” and “horrible life”, but OP said “suffer their whole life” which I associated with the latter.

You have no moral obligation to have children at all, even if they’ll predictably have a happy life. So if their life will instead be predictably horrible (or if they will predictably ruin the lives of the people around them - plenty of severe mental disabilities seem much less horrible for the people themselves than for their caretakers), it’s very reasonable to avoid it.

Thanks, I’ll keep that take in my pocket for later. “Your honor, you can’t possibly prove that in the future a superintelligence won’t be able to reconstruct enough of the victim’s brain to resurrect them, and hence they aren’t dead and I can’t have committed murder!”.

That’s true, though the simple solution is to not be on such platforms. You do not have to let them “shove it in your face until you can’t help it”.