Yeah but then 1000 years from now nobody will have the right USB cable to read it.

I think we should stick to proven solutions for millennia-robust information storage and paint it on walls inside pyramids.

You could "bootstrap" all the information required to produce the hardware to read this, by starting with human-readable instructions for the next step.

What language will humans be reading in 10,000 years?

You don't necessarily need the same hardware to read it, just like you can read a vinyl record optically without a needle

Depends on what you etch on there. If it’s binary representation of actual alphabets then sure. If it’s a video file then without the software to decipher and manipulate the data, it would be pretty indecipherable. How to read an mp4 is not part of the data itself.

At 4.8TB one could add a header section with the full code, instructions how to compile it etc. That would certainly help to reproduce it, assuming civilizations in 10k years still can decypher todays language.

If Nanni could have engraved his shitpost about Ea-nasir's copper into multiple glass tablets, easy to distribute, that would last for 10000 years, he probably would have.

Your family photos should be on the Photos app and you'd have no problems.

Should I stop using my phone because some people do crime through the phone so I'm protecting children by not calling anyone?

> Treating DoS as affecting availability converts the issue into a "do I want to spend $X from a shakedown, or $Y to avoid being shaken down in the first place?"

> Then, "what happens when people find out I pay out on shakedowns?"

What do you mean? You pay to someone else than who did the DoS. You pay your way out of a DoS by throwing more resources at the problem, both in raw capacity and in network blocking capabilities. So how is that incentivising the attacker? Or did you mean some literal blackmailing??

Literal blackmailing, same as ransomware.

I'm curious how you'd characterize an actual malicious file. This is just attempts at making it be more independent. The user isn't an idiot. The CEOs of companies releasing this are.

I characterize a file as reckless if it does not include any basic provision against possible annoyances on top of what's already expected from the system prompt, and as malicious if it instructs the bot to dissimulate its nature and/or encourage it to act brazenly, like this one. I don't believe this is such a high bar to pass.

Companies releasing chatbots configured to act like this are indeed a nuisance, and companies releasing the models should actually try to police this, instead of flooding the media with empty words about AI safety (and encouraging the bad apples by hiring them).

In this day and age "social experiment" is just the phrase people use when they meant "it's just a prank bro" a few years ago.

You went from not understanding them to knowing exactly what they were an expression of pretty quickly!

Yeah but if he listened to a single wellness expert they'd probably tell him to shut down most or all of social media, so what's the point of articles like these. Unless it's unlawful and they get fined nothing changes.

But on this specific topic I'm curious what the wellness experts think about make-up, or even worse purely cosmetic plastic surgery. If digital filters are wrong, surgery should get the death penalty in comparison.

This is not the flex it could be. As far as I know ASML licensed their core tech from US research. Which is why they can dictate who ASML sells to.

That's nonsense. Why is there no ASML in the US then?

I made two assertions and I believe both are true. You seem to be stretching what I said to some form of "and ASML has done nothing else on top", which I didn't say. Maybe I should reduce "their core tech" to EUV, but that's clearly what I meant if you look up the history of the company.

No, I just didn't find any evidence that ASML licences "their core tech" from US. Let it be EUV but I still can't find any sources on it. Do you have some?

You can paste that comment exactly as you wrote it into any search engine or LLM and get your answer.

The burden of proof is on you my friend.

As if, working for someone with such entitled attitude. You find something you think is wrong say what you mean or move along.

As if asking someone to support their pretty substantial claims is all of the sudden called entitled attitude? No, that's just how people reason about different views. You should understand that when you say something you should be able to stand behind your words. C/p a link that supports your view would have taken you 2 seconds. Yet you chose the ad-hominem strategy. Pretty telling for anyone reading this conversation.

What does that matter that a lot of people were farming? If anything that's a good argument for not worrying because we don't have 50%+ unemployment so clearly all those farming jobs were reallocated.

This transformation back then took many many decades like few generations. People had time to adopt - it worked like this: as a kid you have seen family business was going worse, the writing was on the wall and teenagers pursued different professions. This time you won't have time to pivot different profession - most likely you will have not clue where to pivot to.