Too big, too abstract, too confusing.

5. Uniquely capable of solving very specific problems much faster, but not actually useful for general purpose computing

I think two mindsets collide here.
OP thinks film grain is part of the process and thus part of the art piece and, as such, worth to be preserved.
To you film grain is an artifact of the process. The camera tries to capture what the eye would see, the grain is an error and, as such, undesirable.

Wat? What are you talking about?

And proves once again that Canonical is the Microsoft of Linux.

Autocowrecked!

Palpatine?

Wonder if Laufey gonna make the music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNa8jP4zoJo

https://f-droid.org/packages/org.fairscan.app

Not to be confused with Cannaday.

Ew

Alignment with our goals. I’m not talking about biases, those are inherent to the training material.
Alignment refers to how well the network’s learned goal aligns with the intended goal.
The underlying issue is that there are several layers of indirection in the process. How well does the training data align with the intended goal? How well does the learned, internal goal align with the goal described by the training data? How well does the goal internal goal with what the network understands or goal to be?

We’re trying to teach an intelligence that understands us, maybe better than we assume, but that we don’t understand in turn. LLMs are not programmed. They’re selected for, so the process is more like growth or evolution, where we can exert some, but not full control.

I’m glossing over a ton of intricacies here. If you’re interested I highly recommend Robert Miles’ YouTube, where he published several videos on the different types of alignment and/or If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies if you prefer books. This isn’t just fear mongering or luddites opposing progress. These are people with a deep understanding of all the technicalities who came to the conclusion that this technology (maybe not LLMs specifically, but artificial intelligence in general) has the potential to create an intelligence vastly superior to our own, that employs ways of thinking that might as well be extraterrestrial and whose motives we cannot even fathom. And unless we’re absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt certain, that its goals perfectly align with our own, we absolutely shouldn’t try to create it. Because we’re very unlikely to get a second chance if we miss our first shot.

Until we can guarantee the damn things’ alignment their continued use and development should be considered criminal negligence.

Sheep’s what?

Having lived in Montreal for a couple years that’s completely unsurprising to me.
You can get by without a car inside the city, but as soon as you need to travel outside even a short distance you’ll need a car.
Plus people look at you like you’re some kind of apparition if you mention walking somewhere, even if it’s only a block or two away.
I assume the situation is similar in other Canadian cities.

*Forgejo
Just so OP has a chance of actually finding it.

I do feel like it’s entirely possible it was a bug. I would imagine if they wanted to do a backdoor, they would require some form of key.

That would negate plausible deniability.

That’s why we want to get rid of the fucking tanks you people insist on driving around!
Inefficient, polluting and ugly to boot.

I was wondering that myself.
I mean, a mechanism that allows you to get the malware scanner to place whatever software you want on a machine, give it system access and then execute it, feels like a prime suspect for “lawful source interception” bullshit.

"Oh, the one who just published two exploits on our product, after we fucked them over during the responsible disclosure process? Great idea! What are the chances they’ll find another one, right?