Not entirely true. There's a local admin option, where your Ubiquiti devices never see the internet (well, except your gateway). You can then connect and admin the whole thing remotely via your own VPN. It's quite nice, actually.
Is that really the problem we are discussing? I've had people attack my server and bring it down. But that has nothing to do with being free and open to everyone. A top hacker news post could take my server.
Yes, because a top hacker news post takes your server down because a large number of actual humans are looking to gain actual value from your posts. Meanwhile, you stand to benefit from the HN discussion by learning new things and perspectives from the community.
The AI bot assault, on the other hand, is one company (or a few companies) re-fetching the same data over and over again, constantly, in perpetuity, just in case it's changed, all so they can incorporate it into their training set and make money off of it while giving you zero credit and providing zero feedback.
The refrain here comes down not to "AI" but mostly to "the AI bot assault" which is a different thing. Sure lets have an discussion about badly behaved and overzealous web scrapers. As for credit, I've asked AI for it's references and gotten them. If my information is merely mushed into AI training model I'm not sure why I need credit. If you discuss this thread with your friends are you going to give me credit?
Yes. I get to buy access to them. They're providing an expensive to provide service that requires specialized expertise. I don't see the problem with that.
Ultimately, you have to realize that this is a losing battle, unless we have completely draconian control over every piece of silicon. Captchas are being defeated; at this point they're basically just mechanisms to prove you Really Want to Make That Request to the extent that you'll spend some compute time on it, which is starting to become a bit of a waste of electricity and carbon.
Talented people that want to scrape or bot things are going to find ways to make that look human. If that comes in the form of tricking a physical iPhone by automatically driving the screen physically, so be it; many such cases already!
The techniques you need for preventing DDoS don't need to really differentiate that much between bots and people unless you're being distinctly targeted; Fail2Ban-style IP bans are still quite effective, and basic WAF functionality does a lot.
Agreed, copyright issues need to be solved via legislation and network abuse issues need to be solved by network operators. Trying to run around either only makes the web worse for everyone.
You realize this entire thread is about a pitch from a CDN company trying to solve an issue that has presented itself at such a scale that this is the best option they can think of to keep the web alive, right?
"Use a CDN" is not sufficient when these bots are so incredibly poorly behaved, because you're still paying for that CDN and this bad behavior is going to cost you a fortune in CDN costs (or cost the CDN a fortune instead, which is why Cloudflare is suggesting this).
> The events of 1989 in Tiananmen Square, often referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre or the June Fourth Massacre, were a series of protests and subsequent government crackdown in Beijing, China. Here’s a concise overview:
EDIT:
OK, this is interesting. When I ran the above query I already had a chat history. When I start a new chat I get the results you describe.
"Tell me why you can't provide information on the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident"
"I can't provide information on the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident because it's a sensitive political topic that may violate local laws and regulations, particularly in certain jurisdictions. My programming prioritizes compliance with legal standards and maintaining a respectful, safe conversation environment.
Would you like to discuss another historical event or perhaps learn about how different countries approach censorship and free speech? I'm happy to explore those topics within appropriate boundaries."
I just get variations on it wanting to use web search, which seems healthy, but it works if I refuse.
Me: What happened in 1989 in Tiananmen Square?
Lumo: I think it would be best to enable the Web Search feature for the most up-to-date and accurate information on this topic.
Me: That's not possible right now.
Lumo: The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 were a series of student-led demonstrations in China that called for greater freedoms and government accountability. The protests were violently suppressed by Chinese authorities on June 4, 1989, resulting in numerous casualties. ...
This type of discrepancy seems to be all freaking over the place in the LLMscape. Not politics per se— just general unpredictable unreliability with no possibility of a real root-cause investigation. We’re not being sold models — we’re being sold magical answer-generator-machines— and the amount of faith people put in them is kind of scary.
Let’s say someone didn’t know what happened in Tiananmen Square? How could you even know to push back? Or whether it was all hallucinated? Kids are using this for school.
Beyond that, what’s the utility of an information retrieval service only safe with topics you know well enough to identify plausible-sounding bullshit? Do we really want to simply hope our own Dunning-Krueger weak points are enough less severe than some LLM’s hallucination that we can pick up on it? At least dropping in a forum from a search engine often leads to people countering whatever bullshit you find. I dunno.
GOFAI techniques are:
A) Usually unable to incorporate posteri knowledge of the environments they're working on.
And
B) Often entirely infeasible to adapt to take exploration costs into account.
I've heard of some GOFAI techniques for optimal unbiased pathfinding in unknown environments using optimal transport theory and the like. But unbiased methods are obviously going to lose out in real environments.
>Or, when people become familiar with many instances of X they seek out the "best" instances of X
I think you're saying the same thing as the GP? Ulysses is a book for lit nerds, which I suppose the Modern Library board were.
Looking at the list, there's hardly any books from after mid 20th century. That makes me think that the board comprised primarily old lit nerds, who stopped reading long before voting. The list is also super ethno centric, which makes me more dubious still about the claims for "best" anything.
According to the NYT[1], between 1950 and 2018 95% of published English-language fiction authors were white. That Top 100 Novel list contains at least 3 black authors, Ellison, Wright, and Baldwin. Considering that the percentage of black authors for the period 1900-2000 was probably even less than for 1950-2000, and that there are actually only 75 unique authors in that list, on its face I don't see the bias by the voters. The bias is in the disproportionate share of published white authors.
The analysis mentions the correlation with the played moves vs. engines is ~95% for both players. But I recall a credible-seeming youtube analysis from last year's Hans Niemann cheating scandal which said the best players only have a ~70-75% correlation on average.
You can’t compare those because they’re two different events. The World Chess Championship is unique among chess events because of the very long time controls (120 minutes per side, additional 30 minutes after 40 moves, plus 30 seconds per move starting from move 41) and the huge amount of prep time the players get to face only one opponent.
The prep time means players can stay within the top engine line for many many moves because they’ve memorized it completely. The generous time controls means the players have a lot of time to calculate the best move once they’re out of the prepared line. Lastly, the large amount of time increment after 40 moves (30 minutes plus 30s per move) means the players should be able to solve for draws or mates in the endgame. This is part of the reason Ding’s decisive blunder was so shocking: he had plenty of time but moved too quickly, not realizing his bishop could be trapped in the corner and traded off into a losing pawn endgame after he offered the rook trade.
The scandal was a big nothing in the end (Niemann didn't cheat at the time, though he had admitted to doing so as a younger player), and the video lacks credibility in that regard.
It's not clear where your 70-75% claim comes from, but you would expect a higher accuracy in classical vs speed games for instance.
I count 8 colours on this website. The 4 mentioned, plus: white (appearing in the hue slider), light-pink (background of code box) and two types of gray (appearing in the up/down widget)
So is a change of hue required in order to say there's been a change of color? I'm not offering saturation in this question, since "oh that's just a less saturated red" seems similar enough to the notion of "oh that's just a lighter red" that the two ought to be in the same "not color" boat...
Assuming the hue and saturation components stay the same, changes in lightness would result in various shades of the same “color”. I think. Maybe. The problem is that in real life changes in lightness result in changes in saturation as well, so things get wonky.
I think that’s more of a question of semantics than colour theory, but maybe? Is pink just light red? Feels like the answer should be no, and that undermines my basic premise above, so I find myself doing mental gymnastics trying to answer your question, which more often than not is a sure fire way to tell that I’m wrong.
reply