wiki-user: Aatube

Now mostly on @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org . I use this account as a backup.

  • 1 Post
  • 20 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 18th, 2023
  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoEurope@feddit.org•The EU Commission Is Gutting Net NeutralityEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    On what data? All age verification does is attest that an IP is over a certain age; the European solution collects no information other than the boolean “Is user over <age>?”, the expiry date, and the issuing authority. I don’t know what you can do with data simply saying that the user isn’t browsing the internet “illegally”, since with age gating every user on the Internet is over that age. In our present time of dynamic/private IPs, the operator behind the IP (and consequently their age) changes constantly anyways, meaning that little data is constantly invalidated.

    Chat Control is “dormant”. It’s been amended, re-proposed, and then put back on the backburner for umpteenth times, including this time. It’s definitely a threat, I agree, but nothing about it has become more eager in 2025.

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoEurope@feddit.org•The EU Commission Is Gutting Net NeutralityEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    Chat Control has been haunting the chambers since 2021, and it’s in dormancy again as of November 2025. I don’t see how age checks benefit tech companies at all given they reduce their audience and the data for verification is required to be received by the government and denied to private entities. If you live in the EU, you’ve already given the government more information than that.

    Besides starting to fine tech companies for violating the DMA, you also have the Digital Fairness Act proposal last year that we’ll soon see debating in Q3.

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoTechnology@lemmy.world•What OpenAI Did When ChatGPT Users Lost Touch With RealityEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    Citation needed.

    This is a New York Times article. By default, the New York Times is the citation, just like every other MSM. And even then, this specific article does attribute it:

    To understand how this happened, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 current and former OpenAI employees — executives, safety engineers, researchers. Some of these people spoke with the company’s approval, and have been working to make ChatGPT safer. Others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.

    Claude is trying to lick my ass clean every time I ask it a simple question

    The article only said they made a test, not that they weren’t failing it, which happens to be what the linked paper says. This is not new as LLMs also always failed a certain intelligence test devised around that same time period until ~2024.

    As soon as they found experts who were willing to say something else than “don’t make a chatbot”.

    That’s 55%: https://humanfactors.jmir.org/2025/1/e71065

  • Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•*Permanently Deleted*English
    3·
    4 months ago

    it’s also wrong™, but i think attraction is a complicated thing and unlikely to be extrinsically changed after it forms. not that the process of said formation is free from bigotry exposed to, but shaming people for certain attractions instead of, say, focusing on improving representation, inclusivity, and normalization in the environment is more likely to make them fodder and supporters for bigotry. though attraction biases are a symptom of bigotry, this is one of those cases imo where it’s much better to treat the cause over the symptom.