No, the problem also applies to Tor. If a malicious actor controls large parts of the network, there is a high probability that the attacker controls your entire circuit or at least your entry and exit node.
In the latter case, you can do timing attacks to determine which traffic on the exit node belongs to whom on the entry node.
What? No, I think it'd be great! I'd love to be able to say out loud "kube get pods pipe grep service" and the output to be printed on the terminal. I _don't_ want to say "Hey Google, list the pods in kubernetes and look for customer service".
The transfer between my language and what I can type is great. It starts becoming more complex once you need to add countless flags, but again, a structured approach can fix this.
Totally guessing here but this would be a property that gradually appears as the model size increases.
With a tiny model you would get gibberish and with ever increasing models the response would increasingly approach a coherent answer to a finally correct answer.
The author touches on this in the very article linked. His point is that the low accuracy answers provided by ChatGPT risks reinforcing the doctor's biases and then not thinking outside the box. In other words it risks the doctor blindly trusting the AI too much.
The inherent problem with chat bots is you can't investigate why they're telling you something. When I search Google, I'm critically evaluating the information, and it's frustrating when the results it gives are low-accuracy. If I ask a chat bot a question, what would I do with the answer if it might be wrong? There's no context for me to evaluate.
You can ask it to explain its reasoning. And it's even more useful if you ask it to show its reasoning when you ask a question, as it improves the answer.
True, though I said investigate, not interrogate. In the context of the pre-bias example I was responding to, it's fine to integrate it into a search engine to assist with guiding you to sources of information, but it shouldn't manipulate the information by describing it to you, even if it also provided source links.
I'm sure I remember Zuckerberg talking about this very thing in one of the Congress interviews he had.
I don't disagree with you, the content producers are always going to outnumber the moderators by a massive margin. It makes reasonable moderation very difficult.
No. When you visit your friends house, do you get to make the rules and tell them, what food you get for dinner, how you like your back rubbed, etc? No, if you don't like it, don't visit them. Forcing ridiculous laws on them does not lead to good.
The difference in your analogy is you know what your friend is doing. If you went to your friend's house and they secretly spied on you, you'd surely think less of them when/if you found out.
The number of popular websites that now notify that they're tracking you across the Internet is more than 1 in 10 million. They don't have to show any banner if they're not tracking you.
Is your contention that if I click 'no' on the GPDR nag screen it won't sell/harvest my data? The few times that I've looked at the T&Cs more closely, they simply say that some cookies are 'essential' for the website and that I can't opt out from them. I took that to mean that clicking anything was accepting their T&Cs to some degree- hence, I refuse to click any GPDR nag screens ever.
If clicking 'no' is effective, it raises the question of why can't that just be done automatically for me by my browser, sparing me the obnoxious nag screens
> If clicking 'no' is effective, it raises the question of why can't that just be done automatically for me by my browser, sparing me the obnoxious nag screens
Because it's in the website owner's best interest to make the rejecting process be as cumbersome and annoying as possible. The whole thing is a show of bad faith.
Essential cookies refer to cookies required for the technical operation of the site. There is no requirement to notify a user of essential cookies. Here are some examples of the type of functionality covered by essential cookies:
- Persisting a shopping cart.
- Storing your login session.
- Identifying the node that should handle your requests.
Site operators are forbidden by the law from using essential cookies for tracking purposes.
If a site operator is classifying tracking cookies as essential, or using their essential cookies for tracking then they are very likely acting in violation of the law.
Sure and GDPR allows users to make an informed decision as to whether they wish to use a particular website or app.
Without it the user cannot know whether an app or website will track them without first visiting it. The act of loading the site can expose the entirety of your browsing activity to the site operator. Whether you would have agreed to those terms or not isn't factored.
No. We have to stop being freaks about our fricking data. Meaningless data like gender or height should be treated like water, it goes everywhere, it gets on the floor, and it doesn't matter!
How can you possibly say this when google is making billions purely from advertising? One of the biggest companies in the world, whose biggest revenue stream, by an absolutely massive margin, and still growing, is ads.
I think you forget that we live in a bubble here and we do not generalise out to the rest of the population.
How many of those dollars come from mis-taps trying to back out of the growing volume of SEO hell garbage pages to get back to Google? Most people use the web on mobile, and most of them do not use ad blockers, so they experience the full power of this real phenomenon.
It's a case by case basis and thinking you can apply a general rule across the organisation is completely misguided. I don't want to rehash the same arguments so just read the rest of the comments.
