TehPers

Yep, bias exists everywhere. There’s no avoiding it. Reddit does have the benefit that biases tend to change from sub to sub though. Lemmy instances that I’ve seen (not defederated ones) tend to hold the same FOSS bias, but the intensity of it varies from instance to instance.

This is one of the reasons I like what Beehaw does. Your options are upvote, no vote, and report. Anything worthy of a downvote is worthy of a report.

Agreed, feels like the vast majority of people here are FOSS enthusiasts, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily if you align with them, but definitely a bias and could put off people who genuinely don’t care about FOSS or tech in general.

What the hell. I feel bad for reading that, holy crap. That’s some nightmare fuel.

although it uses your biometric data, it’s still a single factor of authentication

Speaking from my experience, I use my phone for biometric authentication. At least from my point of view, I see that as two factors (what I have and what I am) since the biometric authentication only works on my phone.

I am not sure I understood you here. What do you mean by “instead of having each service do their own thing”? Each website using their own method of delivering OTPs?

Basically having multiple places where codes may be generated. This way you can use one location to get OTPs instead of having them delivered via SMS or generated by a different app/service. It ends up being easier and more convenient for the end user (which of course increases adoption).

I guess this has more to do with services adopting OTP generators than sending them via SMS though.

From the perspective of OTPs it makes much more sense to use a separate application (Like Google Authenticator or Aegis Authenticator), preferably on a separate device, to generate the OTPs.

If logging into the password manager to get the password is sufficiently secure (locked behind MFA), then I don’t see the benefit of using a separate OTP generator (aside from maybe if your password manager has a data breach or something, which should be a non-issue except it clearly isn’t thanks to LastPass…)

I’m starting to wonder if phones (or other auth-specific devices) should just become dedicated authentication devices and passwords should just be phased out entirely tbh. Passwords have always had issues because their static nature means if someone learns your password without your knowledge, that method of authentication becomes worthless. The main concern would be what happens when you lose your phone I suppose.

Many password managers use a biometric factor to sign in (your fingerprint, for example, using some kind of auth app if needed). This basically moves the MFA aspect to one service (your password manager) instead of having each service do their own thing. It also comes with the benefits of password managers - each password can be unique, high entropy, and locked behind MFA.

There is no commandment “Thou shalt save children”, duh.

There are a disproportionately large number of people who get one pretty demo and think LLMs are the solution to everything. Even for translations, I’d be interested to see how accurate the major models are in real world scenarios. We’ve been struggling hard to find any practical usage of LLMs that doesn’t require the user to be able to verify the output themselves.

It’s a bit of a shame that HTML went from describing documents to describing UIs. I do miss the days of simple websites, although I’m not old enough to remember the old old internet.

OK, sure, we probably don’t disagree then.

We probably don’t here, but like I said I’m not really interested in discussing the political feasibility of it.

I am obviously NOT arguing that every resource should be public. This discussion is about AI, which was publicly funded, trained on public data, and is backed by public research. This sleight of hand to make my position sound extreme is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.

I don’t think I ever disagreed that the models themselves should be public, and there are already many publicly available models (although it would be nice if GPT-N were). What I disagree with is the service being free. The service costs a company real money and resources to maintain, just like any other service. If it were free, the only entity that could reasonably run the models is the government, but at this point we might as well also have the government run public git servers, public package registries, etc. Honestly, I’m not sure what impression you expected me to get, considering the claim that a privately run service using privately paid-for resources should be free to the public.

There’s a shortage, but it’s not “extreme”. ChatGPT is running fine. I can use it anytime I want instantly. You’d be laughed out of the room if you told AI researchers that ChatGPT can’t scale because we’re running out of GPUS.

Actually no, I work directly with AI researchers who regularly use LLMs and this is the exact impression I got from them.

Finally, there are positive economic externalities to public AI availability.

There are positive economic externalities to public everything availability. We don’t live in this kind of world though, someone will always try to claim a larger share due to human nature. That being said, I’m not really interested in arguing about the political feasibility (or lack thereof) of having every resource being public.

With how many people are already using AI, it’s frankly mind boggling that they’re only losing $700k a day.

There are significant throttles in place for people who are using LLMs (at least GPT-based ones), and there’s also a cost people pay to use these LLMs. Sure you can go use ChatGPT for free, but the APIs cost real money, they aren’t free to use. What you’re seeing is the money they lost after all the money they made as well.

You’re also ignoring the fact that costs don’t scale proportionally with usage. Infrastructure and labor can be amortized over a greater user base. And these services will get cheaper to run per capita as time goes on and technology improves.

I don’t disagree that the services will get cheaper and that costs don’t scale proportionally. You’re most likely right - generally speaking, that’s the case. What you’re missing though is that there is an extreme shortage of components. Scaling in this manner only works if you actually have the means to scale. As things stand, companies are struggling to get their hands on the GPUs needed for inference.

Less than a million dollars a day for everyone who wants to in the whole world to use AI right now?

You’re ignoring the fact that the cost scales with usage. Increasing its availability will also increase the cost, hardware requirements (which can’t really scale since there’s a shortage), and environmental cost due to power usage.

If you look at how much they spend per day (poster quoted $700,000 daily but said unverified), how would it make any sense to provide the service for free? I won’t argue for/against releasing the model to the public, since honestly that argument can go both ways and I don’t think it would make much of a difference anyway except benefit their competitors (other massive companies).

However, let’s assume they did release it publicly, what use would that be for the smaller business/individual? Running these models takes some heavy and very expensive hardware. It’s not like buying a rack and building a computer, these models are huge. Realistically, they can’t provide that as a free service, they’d fail as a company almost immediately. Most businesses can’t afford to run these models themselves, the upfront and maintenance costs would obliterate them. Providing it as a service like they have been means they recoup some of the cost of running the models, while users can actually afford to use these models without needing to maintain the hardware themselves.

Didn’t Uber recently have its first profitable quarter?

Odd, my google search just has a bunch of Lemmy/Mastodon results. Surely I’m doing something wrong, do I need to disable SafeSearch?

It’s only invalid if it generated errors.

I understand this line of thinking, but unless they specify what “flavor” of JSON they accept, I think it’s safe to assume they only accept what’s in spec. What I find weird is that they immediately contradict the spec with their example by writing JavaScript. Should the content-type then be application/javascript? They can easily document the parameters outside the request body instead of adding comments.

Also, yes, I know I’m being pedantic, but if I’m applying for a job, it’s a two way application. They need to give me reason to trust that they’re worth working for. Making up rules along the way when referencing a commonly known spec doesn’t give me much confidence.

Is it just me, or does their sample request use invalid JSON? The keys should be in quotes, comments aren’t in spec (but commonly supported), and trailing commas are invalid as well (but commonly supported).