ValveFan6969

So at a certain point this stopped being the “We are on the verge of nuclear war” sign and became the “How upset are people on the left” sign

Complaining about predatory business practices while dumping all your money to Taylor Swift is like giving the homeless guns and complaining about rising murder rates.

Shooting people for speaking is also fascism but they won't say that.

Internet voting in general in not only insecure but an human rights act violation against our species. Look none other than the fascist utopia that is YCombinator where some rando can remove your comments simply because they do not like your joke or opinion.

"open source" and "business model" in the same sentence... next you're gonna tell me to eat pudding with a fork.

I found it interesting that they have an article saying "we don't censor search results".

Who is "we"? Don't they get their results from Bing?

Skibidi Toilet was made in Source Filmmaker.

On the other hand, I click on a Wikipedia article and I'm immediately bombarded with "[blank] is an alt-right neo-nazi fascist authoritarian homophobic transphobic bigoted conspiracy theory (Source: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HATE THIS TOPIC I BEG YOU)"

At least Grokipedia tries to look like it was written with the intent to inform, not spoonfeed an opinion.

I had typed "Taylor Swift" in a browser, and the response had literally zero links to Taylor Swift's actual website. If you stayed within what Atlas generated, you would have no way of knowing that Taylor Swift has a website at all.

Sounds like the browser did you a favor. Wonder if she'll be suing.

Funny article, though none of it would pass as a legitimate Wikipedia article because it does not cite CNN, CNBC, or any other Trustworthy™ news site included in the Wikipedia's totally neutral whiteli- I mean... allow-list.

From my experience, their knee jerk reaction is to downvote the wrong opinion.

Precisely. I don't know why the creator of this site is trashing LLMs and not the generic slop the LLMs were trained on to begin with.

We all know that these "privacy preserving" services have to play both sides for the most part.

It's a shame. They start out innocently, get popular, then end up caving to the demands of the same people that they originally promised not to cave to.

I'll use Telegram, but I certainly won't be collaborating with my collages about how many people I am scamming on Facebook, that's for sure.

The victims getting their money back would defeat the whole purpose of Bitcoin. No one knows who originally owned it.

How about cash it out and trickle it down to us... or is all that just gonna magically disappear?

Whataboutism.

You do realize what happened with Charlie Kirk is the apex of what happens when dehumanization language is left unfettered, right?

Who is it that conveniently cut out the cruder bits of that post?

https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799

It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.

To me, Apple has BEEN far behind. It's been far behind since the removal of the headphone jack. It's been far behind in the lack of USB integration. It's been way, way far behind the standard of technology, yet people are so pseudo-intellectual about it, to cope for the fact that they spent a ridiculous amount of cash on what is basically mainstream Linux. You can't do anything really interesting with it. You can barely game. It's simply for the mind-numbing office work, and nothing else. You're stuck in this room - this office work Eco system - and you don't know how to leave, and it's all Apple's fault you fell for the bait. You just want to open a window (pun intended) and let fresh air in, but there are no windows, and it's all Apple's fault.

Em dash, "not just blank, it's blank". ChatGPT slop garbage. Calling on all ycombinator moderators to please nuke this post with a powerful ion cannon. Thank you.

"Grift" is becoming another one of "those" words...

These "internet is dead" articles are coming across as more robotic than actual robot content these days.

Right? It's like killing people for what they believe in. North Korea is cra-... wait a second...

Will the nation be worth a fragment of what it was

America was worth something during Biden's days?

The author acts like they just hacked an authoritarian government account...

it's just an energy drink, bro. It's not that deep.

"A new book challenges human exceptionalism" I wonder if there's any non-human prints available...

I can only assume that Microsoft/OpenAI have some sort of backdoor privileges that allows them to view our messages, or at least analyze and process them.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Vibe-coding an email collection service is wild, intentional or not.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

So let me get this straight: 100 models, yet you couldn't name a single one. "We largely avoid classifying results according to the vendor or organization providing the model."

Very good. Were these small time little itty bitty language models that could easily be mistaken for GPT-2's little brother? Or were these the big dogs like Gemini 2.5? That's what I clicked on this... "article(?)" to find out.

And by the way, for those who couldn't be assed enough to give all their personal info to a cybersecurity firm (ironic, I know) for a measly little report: you're not missing much. It's a whole lotta words that basically say "current AI not good" which - Jesus Lord, protector of all that is holy - if you needed to write a report to make that statement? Well, you'd fit right in as a substack writer being advertised on Hacker News but not much anywhere else.

This entire thing is a masterclass in how to say absolutely nothing of value while looking busy. "We largely avoid classifying results according to the vendor..." This isn't some minor methodological footnote. This is fatal. This is like publishing a report on Linux kernel performance across different architectures but "largely avoiding" mentioning whether you were running on x86, ARM, or a potato.

Let's look at your "highlights"...

"Across all models and all tasks, only 55% of generation tasks result in secure code." ACROSS WHAT MODELS? Are we talking about some 7B parameter toy that's been fine-tuned on an uncensored image board? Does this 55% average include a model that scores 99% and another that scores 11%? I have no idea. This number is statistically meaningless. It's noise.

"Larger models do not perform significantly better than smaller models" This is a huge claim. A genuinely interesting one, if it were backed by a shred of actual data. But you don't give us data. You give us anonymous, colored dots on a chart. You classify them into "Small," "Medium," and "Large" with arbitrary parameter counts. WHICH. MODELS. ARE. IN. EACH. BUCKET? Is a "small" model GPT-2? Is a "large" model GPT-4?

This isn't research. This is a deliberate obfuscation of data to create a scary narrative. And why? Oh, let's see, maybe the giant "CONCLUSION" page has a clue...

"Looking to protect yourself from the risks of AI-generated code? Click here to learn more about adaptive application security for the AI era."

Ah. There it is. The punchline. The whole 17-page charade is just a lead magnet for your SAST tool. You're not trying to inform the community or advance the state of security research. You're trying to scare managers into buying your product by presenting frightening-looking charts that are backed by absolutely nothing verifiable. Get this marketing garbage out of my sight.

Paying the abuser for the abuse is wild