So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states.
He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed.
Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.
During the ordeal the government attorneys repeatedly claimed that they had no way to bring him back (although clearly that was a lie as he was returned…)
We have crossed the rubicon so far, the fact we even have to nitpick this is absurd.
I guess I don't understand why anyone thinks giving an LLM access to credentials is a good idea in the first place? It's been demonstrated best practice to separate authentication/authorization from the LLM's context window/ability to influence for several years now.
We spent the last 50 years of computer security getting to a point where we keep sensitive credentials out of the hands of humans. I guess now we have to take the next 50 years to learn the lesson that we should keep those same credentials out of the hands of LLMs as well?
I'll be sitting on the sideline eating popcorn in that case.
I don't have a dog in that fight. Not the bipartisan stuff. My main resentment against Kimmel is how he seems to be prioritised in my YouTube suggestions.
YouTube videos are not citations. Just went looking for the video and couldn't find it thanks to YT's useless search function. I was forced to endure ten minutes of his hack journalism. More proof he is a mouth for hire. He said the exact opposite about FIFA when they gave Trump a peace prize.
An op-ed is an outside opinion piece published by a news organization, historically in a print newspaper or magazine.
It's irrelevant if he's giving his opinion on a subject in a YouTube video; it's still not journalism (and it's not even an op-ed, since he's effectively self-publishing).
I don't consider Kimmel a journalist anymore than I consider him funny — all his jokes were written for him. He helmed a failing TV show, for which he was being paid millions.
None of that stops him from trying to present himself as a journalist or a comedian.
I know what an op ed is. You don't need to tell me. It doesn't have to be in print anymore. (You obviously looked up that definition somewhere.)
Your entire argument hinges on the claim that he's presenting himself as a journalist. He's not doing that. You're not arguing in good faith and it's clear you have an axe to grind - so I'm going to disengage now.
I was just about to say the same thing - why go through all the effort to patch the binaries when you can just redirect the DNS to your own server?
Then I saw something about signing with RSA - btw OP, the link doesn't work in your blog - there's some markup issues. But there's no discussion of where the RSA key comes from (just that you create one with OpenSSL). Does the Wii just accept any "signed" content? If so, wow, 2007 was a crazy time...
Different levels of capabilities. The summary feature in google uses a quick and inaccurate AI model. Were it to be a heavier model, we wouldn’t have this problem.
We would still have this problem. The heavier models make mistakes at too high a rate vs. a physician. Especially on imaging data. Real world data and patient presentations often deviate from the textbooks they are trained on.
That's a different class of problem. It will do just fine on text based queries spanning a few pages. Probably better than the average physician (average over all countries).
I do agree that LLM's are not there yet in the image part.
I love how this is the defense of all these tech companies. "I'm sorry, your honor, we are just a poor multi-trillion dollar company... there's just no way for us to control anything, because we're just too big..."
The difference is- the producers of shows such as Mister Rogers and Sesame Street did not have a profit motive to increase "engagement" numbers. They actually used psychology to try and improve the outcomes of their viewers (aka children) rather than trying to improve the outcomes of themselves.
I mean, watch CoComelon and Sesame Street (or Mister Rogers, or Daniel Tiger...) side by side and tell me there isn't a qualitative difference between the two.
So... because we believe now that the moral panic around TV was unfounded, that directly implies there could be no concerns about the impact of consuming large amounts of algorithmically generated "junk content" by young developing brains?
Then, if that's the case, put your kids where your mouth is, go buck wild and sit your kids in front of CoComelon all day.
TV of the past is not okay, especially not in excessive amounts. But I too have noticed that shows from that era tend to be less fast-paced than those of today, so it's probably less harmful.
what I love is the people on this very site who will downvote you and call you a bad parent for fighting this tooth and nail with your own kids.
I have never sat my kids down with some stupid YouTube channel like CoComelon -- or any YouTube channel for that matter -- yet I am at the mercy of the same strong market forces that make that style of content popular. As a result I have the same issues with emotional disregulation related to screen time with one of my children (the other two handle it mostly OK).
So now, just like everything else it seems, the parents are left alone to try and fight this battle with trillion dollar corporations all by themselves. Yes, some parents have given up and willfully handed their kids' future to these sociopaths. But I assure you there are millions of us who are left in a David vs Goliath fight with no end in sight.
We banned proprietary software in our home, self host the internet services we need and want as a family, and block ads in everything.
Gave up my own phone entirely a few years ago partly to ensure kids never see me use one or rely on one so they know such tools are optional in life.
I like teaching kids modern technology starting with a soldering iron making an LED blink, and building a PC from parts, and eventually compiling an operating system from source code. I see absolutely no reason for a kid to ever need unsupervised access to the internet until at least high school, and even then not on a phone, but via desktop computers in common areas where there is accountability.
Kids turn 18 eventually. Unless they’re homeschooled and kept in a compound away from peers with different experiences, I’m not sure how sustainable this approach is long-term.
I say this as the father of a 17-year-old who once read 200 books per semester in elementary school, winning school and city reading awards. This year in high school, she’s read maybe a couple of short stories at most. She’s grown up surrounded by bookshelves in every room, but now she has no inclination to even glance at the spines, much less open a book.
We read aloud together every night for years, usually books well beyond her grade level, which was already advanced. I exposed her early to Bergman, Antonioni, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and other great directors. Now her media diet is mostly TikTok and gaming YouTube videos. Musically, she’s remained open to everything from classical to oldies, fortunately. As for technology, despite learning quite a bit of Python and JavaScript starting at 10-11, she’s currently uninterested in and actively hostile to understanding anything about AI architecture or underlying systems.
Is this a teenage phase? Maybe. I’m hoping with everything I have that it is, and that the curiosity I modeled for her will resurface eventually.
You can create the ideal environment, model the behavior you want, and do everything you can as a parent. But once kids develop autonomy and see what their peers are doing, they make their own choices. Sometimes those choices look nothing like what you hoped to cultivate.
When a kid is old enough to pay for their own apartment and bills and has money left over for a smartphone, drugs, alcohol, or other poisons, that will be their choice to make.
Until then, they are not an independent adult, and it is absolutely the responsibility of a parent to keep them away from poison they are clearly not emotionally mature enough to regulate yet.
> she’s currently uninterested in and actively hostile to understanding anything about AI architecture or underlying systems.
Same answer. Most adults cannot moderate proprietary social media algorithms and AI tech so why would we expect a teen to?
When one permits kids to access to things literally purpose built to ensure humans think less, it should not be surprising when they think less.
Burn ChatGPT and Tiktok with fire. Every home would be better off banning things like these.
Mate what were you hoping a kid would get out of Ingmar Bergman and Antiononi movies and Javascript? Imagine forcing a child to watch Red Desert lmao. And now you're writing off her curiosity because she's not interested in AI architecture or whatever. Let people develop their own interests jfc
I think you are confusing forced exposure to something with being exposed to something by choice. I did not force my daughter to watch Bergman and Antonioni; I was interested in their movies so I saw them, and she chose to be interested in what kept me interested. That is how we get our cultural knowledge passed down through generations of parents who do not simply consume whatever algorithmically generated media is served up to them.
You are setting the problem: you have assumed that for children to be introduced to anything other than the popular culture among their peers is always oppressive. And when you narrowed my references to Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, and Antonioni down to "Red Desert," you showed either that you are being dishonest or that you really don't know what you're dismissing when you dismiss all of these directors and their works.
Her access to everything included books, music, films from different genres and time periods, and she chose which things she wanted to pursue based on the options available to her. The fact that now she does not care about the architecture of artificial intelligence does not indicate that the exposure I provided to her earlier failed her, and this is precisely what I said could happen: teenagers are making their own choices, influenced by peer pressure and social forces, and that does not make the earlier exposure I gave her invalid or mean I should have given her an iPad at the age of 5 and called it autonomy. I’m not writing off her curiosity, which you would see had you read all the way to the end of my comment.
Given your username, I am not surprised that you are weak in nuanced thinking regarding exposure versus coercion.
Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult.
Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.
reply