Are we really at our last straw? I mean c’mon, there must be other ways to make women feel safe other than equipping them with a surveillance product from a toxic tech bro.

Good.

I just want to thank everybody in this chat for hinting me towards Kentucky Ballistics. Didn’t know this peak entertainement existed.

Iran won.

KAZAKSTAAAaan!!!

Read Laudato Sí.

Okay as cryptic as possible, hmm, let me see… I encrypted everything and lost the keys?

Hmm, that’s pretty cryptic tho.

Geef me mijn HONKbal. Het is honkbal hier in Holland. Honk. Bal. Honkbal. In het Japans: honkubalu.

I am genuinely shocked reading this from a Japanese car CEO. A German or an American, well they suck in terms of quality (yes also German cars, read the tests, very bad performance in repairs/km driven). Japanese cars usually score high in quality and innovation.

Shortsighted reductionist viewpoint. Not science but philodophy will get us (all living beings!) out of the mess our global ecosystem is in. I do get the desire to ‘fix’ stuff, though. But it’s the wrong approach imho.

Couldn’t agree more

Humans: oh sure, let’s not change our insane agricultural system that is the major killer of biodiversity but instead create yet another technonfix by now in 2026™ fiddeling with the genes of another species.

When will we finally learn: there are no technological solutions to ‘manage’ the living. The living is not ‘manageable’./We’ve tried this approach pretty much since 100 years and every one ‘solution’ created two new problems. Look where we are guys, our planet is FUCKED. 50 years ago it was DDT, now it’s Crispr-CAS9…

1000 likes for this celebration of technical human dominance, we’re doing quite right, do we? Not our ‘dysfunctional’ ecosystem is the problem, but our approach to it that is based on control and (technoligical) dominance, instead of humility and respect.

Face of death

Welkom to ze cyberspeisss! 🤖

You are American, right?

The results, especially the high numbers stated in the news article (68% recall, 90% accuracy) are overestimated as their verification method (i.e., whether the LLM detected really the right account) come from matching veryfied accounts with a test set of anonymous accounts of which they knew the real name. They knew the real name bcs the persons had a public link to their LinkedIn in their “anonymous” profile (which was removed for the sake of testing wheter the LLm can match the two acfounts. That being said: a user who uses a pseudonym but links his/her account publically to a, say, LinkedIn account doesn’t really care about anonymity and might hand out many more ‘breadcrumbs’ to follow than a truly anonymous account.

But I still think that also in the case of a fully anonymous account, people can be fingerprinted and matched with non-anonymous identities due to language, style etc. by a LLM.

Tbh I read the research article and it’s not rocket science that they were doing. Any 2nd rate FBI analyst would have come up with these ideas sooner or later to try and match anonymous profiles with veryfied ones using LLMs.

If you can jailbreak it, Tuinman, Vlad can jailbreak it.

Haha.