Exposed credentials means that somebody got sloppy the password. So yeah, “stolen creds”. Give the fact that a) NYT seems knows which credentials were exposed, and b) We haven’t seen hundreds of other high(er) profile companies have their private repos breached, it is far more likely that NYT fucked up, and not Microsoft (which is what you implied, with nothing to back it up - other than a very narrow-minded definition of the word hack).

Upvoted because this article was an interesting read.

I didn’t know those were LLMs, TIL.

You’re missing the point. I’ll make your example more specific.

Well when fraud/rape/murder happens we have laws. So no problems.

Those things happen. Creating a LLM based on copyrighted material without permission happens - it’s not a hypothetical. But even then, giving a punishment after the fact does not make the initial crime “no problem”, as you put it.

I don’t think anyone is faulting the machines for this, just the people who instruct the machines to do it.

Would you be okay with applying that argument for any crime?

Bingo.

Using it to (create a tool to) create derivatives of the work on a massive scale.

Maybe make your point yourself, instead of asking people to Google it for you?

“All I did was misrepresent something harmless, done by a company that’s doing so much more horrible things that I shouldn’t be using their product in the first place, and now people are calling me out on it. Clearly, they are wrong.”

Nope, but it will stop the less determined ones.

With no email verification, you can pretty much create dozens of fake accounts per second - as fast as the API can handle.

These are the same promises the emergence of the blockchain gave us. We’re now nearly a decade later, and the most useful application has been get-rich-quick schemes. Yet, all these listed applications are still not in use, and/or better than their non-blockchain counterparts.

Hell, if you know why electronic voting is not, and will never be a good idea, you definitely wouldn’t want them as an NFT.

Absolutely. Like I said, I needed it for work, but there’s nothing Facebook could give me that would be worth their spying.

Without the Block feature spammers, scammers, and crazies can destroy anyones posts by filling it with dick pics, scams, gore, anything.

Pretty sure they’d only destroy their own account with that - they’d be 1 report away from being banned. If none of your followers were to report it, it’s probably time to cancel your account.

Fair enough. I never used the algorithm timeline that inserts strangers into your stream so that was never an issue for me. Just the people I follow, chronologically, for me. Whether I block them or not, people who really want to would still be able to read my tweets. Blocking them just gives them more acknowledgement than they deserve.

I haven’t deleted mine yet, but I only seldom check it. Left this video as a pinned post though, it might inspire some people to quit as well.

Ha.

Not one capable of registering all the minute details of my ID, no.

So… Just theoretical applications so far?

This is going to get buried, but I think it’s important to note that block on twitter (unlike on most platforms) works both ways. You can still mute an account, and you won’t see any of their content or mentions.

By removing block, it means you can no longer block a person from following you, but you can still prevent seeing their stuff. After all - all that person has to do see your public tweets is open an incognito browser window, and view your profile. If you have a private profile, none of this applies to begin with. So in that sense, I agree with Elon - block in its current form on twitter makes no sense.

Edit: Responding directly onto your posts - good point, I hadn’t considered that. It’s partially circumvented by changing the setting so can comment on your posts, but I agree that’s more effort. For all the other things though - if you block someone now they can just take a screenshot of your tweet and comment on that.

Damn it, uwe. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Show, yes. Take a picture of, no.