It is also not proof of work because of asymmetries between attacker and defender. An attacker only needs to find one exploitable issue before the defender finds it and patches it, while the defender eventually needs to find all issues - and even then can't really be sure they remediated everything.
The defender also not only has to discover issues but get them deployed. Installing patches takes time, and once the patch is available, the attacker can use it to reverse engineer the exploit and use it attack unpatched systems. This is happening in a matter of hours these days, and AI can accelerate this.
It is also entirely possible that the defender will never create patches or users will never deploy patches to systems because it is not economically viable. Things like cheap IoT sensors can have vulnerabilities that don't get addressed because there is no profit in spending the tokens to find and fix flaws. Even if they were fixed, users might not know about patches or care to take the time to deploy them because they don't see it worth their time.
Yes, there are many major systems that do have the resources to do reviews and fix problems and deploy patches. But there is an enormous installed base of code that is going to be vulnerable for a long time.
How would it even be possible to name a service "Google helpdesk - password reset" or something like that, without being insta banned? Obvious fraud in the making, not getting recognized?
These 2 species of eagles are the biggest eagles in Europe.
Eagles are the biggest birds of prey which are active hunters.
A few species of vultures are much bigger than eagles, up to twice heavier.
In Europe, previously there was rather widespread a bird of prey that is intermediate in size and in appearance between eagles and true vultures, the so-called bearded vulture.
Unfortunately the bearded vulture and the true vultures have been exterminated in many parts of Europe by using poisoned dead animals.
For the bearded vulture, the Romans used a much better name, "ossifraga", which means "break-bones" (from which the word "osprey" comes, due to a confusion about the birds for which the name was used). The bearded vulture was called "break-bones", because it eats only bones, after breaking them by letting them fall on a rock from a great height.
Before the disappearances of the golden eagles and of the bearded vultures, they provided some of the most spectacular views in high mountains, due to their exquisite flying prowess.
I stopped reading once the author made a false dichotomy between species and maturity stages and then used an extremely weak counter example to “prove” that Pokemon evolution is species-based.
First, the author didn’t prove that there is a dichotomy between the species-interpretation of Pokemon evolution and the maturity interpretation. It’s totally possible Pokemon evolution is represented by some third, unmentioned concept.
Second, the author used this false dichotomy to “prove” the species-based interpretation by saying you can’t call a Bulbasaur a Venusaur and you can call a puppy a dog. That, of course, is not a proof. It’s generally incorrect, for instance to call a baby girl a woman, as a counter example.
Public API keys are a thing. Arguably they are poorly named (it's really more of a client identifier), and modeling them as primarily a key instead of primarily as a non-secret identifier can go very wrong, as evidenced here.
The "too dangerous to release" capability was writing somewhat plausible news articles based on a headline or handwritten beginning of an article. In the same style as what you had written
Today we call that "advanced autocomplete", but at the time OpenAI managed to generate a lot of hype about how this would lead to an unstoppable flood of disinformation if they allowed the wrong people access to this dangerous tool. Even the original gpt3 was still behind waitlists with manual approval
The U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act is entering a decisive legislative window, with implications for Ripple’s XRP, stablecoins, and broader institutional cryptocurrency adoption.
It is scary building on the public cloud as a solo dev or small team. No real safety net, possibly unbounded costs, etc. A large portion of each personal project I do is spent thinking about how to prevent unexpected costs, prevent them, and react to them. I used to just chuck everything onto a droplet or VPS, but a lot of the projects I am doing lately need services from Google or AWS. I tend to prefer GCP at this point because at least I can programmatically disconnect the billing account when they get around to tripping the alert.
Look, I'm not even claiming that piracy is a good term for it, or that the association between theft and copying wasn't pushed in pro-IP campaigns. But for the past 20 (or 30?) years, piracy has been the word everyone uses for this type of activity.
My point is: even if you changed the word, and explained the difference to everyone who couldn't distinguish between (A) literal theft of a physical object, and (B) a replication of some sequences of binaries, you're still not addressing the real question.
And the real question is: Why shouldn't an author have an option to protect their IP, physically or digitally? What's the difference between copying a physical book and a digital book without author's approval, from the point-of-view of an author trying to get paid for every copy?
I'm personally a fan of alternatives to IP-based earnings and earning enforcement, but I don't see how that helps any author trying to make a living from their content in the world where there are very few alternatives.
> When your Prepay credit balance on the billing account hits $0, all API keys in all projects linked to that billing account will stop working simultaneously. Prepay credits apply only to Gemini API usage costs; you can't use them to pay for other Google Cloud services.
Yeah this is one possible way to generate grounded an"responses" in Afterimage. To accomplish context augmentation when generating a response, it allows to use different RAG strategies where retriever may be chosen for the specific use case at hand. This is where composability comes into play.
Whether or not this is technically correct, a comment that begins this way is unlikely to be persuasive.