The cyber unit within IT is more likely, those ones are besotted with ticking compliance checkboxes, the delegation of responsibility and a game of musical chairs at any cost.
It is even more likely that IT was at loggerheads with cyber, but nowadays cyber seems to be able to trump everything and everyone.
There's no such thing as a best language that only depends on what year it is, what do you want to do with it and are you proficient with any language ecosystems already?
Since my test e-mails from a throwaway don't seem to go through: What checks does this perform? Since the policy pages don't name third parties like virustotal I assume it runs some OSS tools on your side?
Regarding the privacy policy and ToS: How do you see people using this in a corporate setting vs. something local? Most suspicious e-mail I encounter can't just be sent to random third parties.
sidenote: Some of the text is gray on gray and barely visible, e.g. on the main overview page when logged in and your policy pages.
-) Throwaway indeed doesnt go through. Have to have a look on that. I assume that most users forward from a legit mail tough.
-) Regarding checks, we use clamav and open the file in a sandbox for preview (for example archives like .zip
-) Regarding privacy, valid point. Tough the usp of the tool is the simplicity, so no installation etc. If it is a problem for most corporate settings we have to adapt.
I meant your website and resume that you linked there. If this is not some weird thought scenario, pointing her to the public forum you use to discuss alternatives to her simply talking to whoever's responsible for her comsec doesn't seem like the greatest idea. If this is an actual problem it's not yours to solve and certainly has solutions that aren't this... convoluted.
>If this is an actual problem it's not yours to solve and certainly has solutions that aren't this... convoluted.
Yeah, I took that view for a while. For example she gets my physical mail, so in theory I could just send her a burner phone myself, they could be like here this is personal you can't take it inside and she can say no problem and have the phone. But I took the view that this is really not my problem to solve.
Terribly sorry to harp on what the others in this thread have said but it seems like you've either been negligently briefed (due to the implausible scenarios you're describing and that you're posting this tied to your real identity, their first name on your website - assuming that's more real than the ChatGPT Ph.D. and other random entries there -, and your previous HN submission) or you're being lied to.
This is from 21, not really news, and the paper version on arxiv and published at NeurIPS have quite a few citations. No one's suppressing this, people that don't reflect on their datasets or how they use them just either don't care or fail to acknowledge they're actual issues.
IANA AI developer but have been looking into this in detail recently for other purposes. I was puzzled at the lack of info about "books" and when searching for detail (in what I believe was a reasonably diligent manner) found a very surprisingly small amount of it. I assumed there would be more knowledge and did ask for it here. So now I will go look up those papers to get a better sense of things. Thank you for the tip.
I note neither this paper nor any discussion of "BookCorpus" or even "book corpus" has appeared on HN previously.
Addressing "Documentation Debt" in Machine Learning
Research: A Retrospective Datasheet for BookCorpus, 2021, Jack Bandy and Nicholas Vincent
Would you please refrain from creating new accounts to post duplicates of this?
That's in the guidelines as well. HN has an e-mail address down at the bottom if you want to get in touch with them to potentially get this one changed.
