![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/h1ChnLuBHr.png)
Agreed that law enforcement should not be involved but the quote I posted was also from the article and it seems impossible.
Agreed that law enforcement should not be involved but the quote I posted was also from the article and it seems impossible.
Most of these make sense and are definitely blockers for this ever releasing but -
Remove the concept of the Pseudonym Provider and ensure pseudonyms are generated and stored locally without the possibility of linking back to real identities.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this data all has to be signed somewhere right? Like the eID contains cryptographically signed assertions about the user in some standard (JWT?) format.
What use is signing the assertions locally? There would be no way to tell if the citizen actually had any valid id at all. A pseudonym provider is the privacy layer that allows for signing of new tokens after ensuring the validity of the old.
How could you sign an anonymous token using a valid one without it being linked back to the valid one? It seems like impossible constraints.
Am I totally off base here?
Prompt engineering isn’t a real field bro
It’s unclear if the current models can reach that level though. They seem more like they’re asymtotically approaching their limit.
Maybe I’m wrong and GPT 5 will be the end all and be all - but I don’t think generalist models will ever be consistent enough. Specialist generators focused on specifics, trained to output very defined data seem more likely to be useful than this attempt to make a single catch all LLM.
Gpt 4 premium pictures still have these major issues.
It’s funny how the generators arent getting better. They’ve plateaued pretty hard in terms of believability. Glance value? Convincing.
Under any level of scrutiny though this falls apart in at least a dozen ways.
… But not when Joyce writes them. Don’t worry he’ll reference it again in 200 pages and if you haven’t figured out what theme they represent you’ll miss the fifth layer of context that actually inverts the meaning of the current paragraph.
(Ok he’s not that obtuse but I wouldn’t ever use death of the author/blue curtains on Joyce)
Hmm maybe I stop donating then… I’ll have to dig into where my money is actually going.
Sorta. The foundation does.
Yes. Just like I donate to my Lemmy host on a regular basis.
I even pay for YouTube, despite using Vanced.
Fuck ads.
The issue is fuck ads
“I want to make a movie so painfully obvious in its satire that everyone who understands it lives in perpetual psychological torment inflicted on them by all the people who don’t.”
The movie makes it clear that:
Given it’s a 3d print and cost about $0.60 to make each one…
Now if they made the STL as well then it makes more sense.
Resources are just way cheaper than developers.
It’s a lot cheaper to have double the ram than it is to pay for someone to optimize your code.
I don’t see where you’re reading that idea.
It’s a lot cheaper to double the ram ergo you do not have to pay someone to optimize your code.
Where are you getting this bizarre inverse from?
Psychopath
Just because you don’t own something doesn’t mean you should trash it.
First you insist that companies don’t own the code then you say if you don’t own it you don’t have to care.
God I hope I never work with an idiot like you.
Companies don’t pay for your 2x RAM and it doesn’t slow down their user acquisition so they don’t care.
Companies own the code you write.
It’s not your code if you’re working for a corp - it’s theirs.
Resource optimization has nothing to do with product quality. Really good experiences can be done with shitty resource consumption. Really bad experiences can be blisteringly fast in optimization.
The reason programmers work in increasingly abstract languages is to do more with less effort at the cost of less efficient resource utilization.
Rollercoaster Tycoon was ASM. Slay the Spire was Java. They’re both excellent games.
It’s impossible to do without exposing a private signing cert to everyone, yes. That’s the issue.
You can’t do asymmetric key signing anonymously and with a central issuer.
So either you have to just trust the assertions (0 security) or you have to have a trusted issuer (not anonymous)
A pseudonym issuer is a trusted issuer. There’s no way to do it otherwise. You have to trust someone to make this kind of system work.