This just sounds like a boring definitional issue. 'Thinker' is a loaded word.
You are advocating for a particular (more inclusive) definition for 'thinker' which clashes with the author's, but his is equally valid. You're both just gesturing at different concepts and suggesting they should be tagged to that word.
OP raises a particular way to classify something about personalities, says he finds it quite interesting/discriminative, and calls that kind of personality a "thinker". You instead consider a "thinker" a broader category.
That feels like an empty disagreement (nobody is right on such matters) - the real debatable question of substance is whether the _concept_ OP is gesturing at has interesting discriminative power. That concept is something like "personalities which seem to value the act of thinking through a problem/problem solving itself rather than downstream result".
> ---- All above is pure fantasy and never happened, as you probably have already guessed.
Ah, while I was a bit suspicious, I thought it might be real (weirdly worded). What exactly is the point of fabricating this?- Is there a joke I'm blind to?
Forget OS updates. The biggest obstacle to exploit persistence: a good old hard system reboot.
Modern iOS has an incredibly tight secure chain-of-trust bootloader. If you shut your device to a known-off state (using the hardware key sequence), on power on, you can be 99.999% certain only Apple-signed code will run all the way from secureROM to iOS userland. The exception is if the secureROM is somehow compromised and exploited remotely (this requires hardware access at boot-time so I don't buy it).
So, on a fresh boot, you are almost definitely running authentic Apple code. The easiest path to a form of persistence is reusing whatever vector initially pwned you (malicious attachment, website, etc) and being clever in placing it somewhere iOS will attempt to read it again on boot (and so automatically get pwned again).
But honestly, exploiting modern iOS is already difficult enough (exploits go for tens millions $USD), persistence is an order of magnitude more difficult.
Does anyone have an actual technical theory of how it’s possible for commands that used to work , say a month ago, to just stop working?
What is it about Siri’s architecture that causes “Set bedroom light to 30%”, a command that worked for years, to randomly stops working on a random Tuesday with no OS update or home change?
I mean, what on earth are they doing on the back end…?
This was quite catastrophic - everything was down, even nationwide mobile data for Vodafone users (and piggybacking MVNOs). I hope we get more info or a postmortem.
It also had spillover effects on other providers — O2 service was degraded
In this case, I think the interesting part is the video itself / the process. He breaks down a very inaccessible product and explains how it all works.
A well-written article tainted by the ugly AI slop banner plastered up front. Instantly makes it seem lower effort. It would look just fine without a photo at all!
You make a good point. I'm just spitballing here, but I think what sets generative art apart for me is the element of deception.
I'd be perfectly fine with a hypothetical world in which all generated art is clearly denoted as such. Like you said, art is in the eyes of the beholder. I welcome a world in which AI art lives side-by-side with traditional art, but clearly demarcated.
Unfortunately, the reality is very different.
AI art inherently tries to pass off as if it were made by a human. The result of the tools released in the past year is that my relationship with media online has become adversarial. I've been tricked in the past by AI music and images which were not labelled as such, which fosters a sort of paranoia that just isn't there with the examples you mentioned.
Simple: I am equally offput when LLMs are used for generating poetry, lyrics, novels, scripts, etc. I don't like it when low-effort generated slop is passed off as art.
I just think that LLMs have genuine use for non-artistic things, which is why I said it's dangerous but may be useful if we play our cards right.
It saddens me. Innovations in AI 'art' generation (music, audio, photo) have been a net negative to society and are already actively harming the Internet and our media sphere.
Like I said in another comment, LLMs are cool and useful, but who in the hell asked for AI art? It's good enough to fool people and break the fragile trust relationship we had with online content, but is also extremely shit and carries no meaning or depth whatsoever.
The past few years' innovation in AI has roughly been split into two camps for me.
LLMs -- Awesome and useful. Disruptive, and somewhat dangerous, but probably more good than harm if we do it right.
'Generative art' (i.e. music generation, image generation, video generation) -- Why? Just why?
The 'art' is always good enough to trick most humans at a glance but clearly fake, plastic, and soulless when you look a bit closer. It has instilled somewhat of a paranoia in me when browsing images and genuinely worsened my experience consuming art on the internet overall. I've just recently found out that a jazz mix I found on YouTube and thought was pretty neat is fully AI generated, and the same happens when I browse niche artstyles on Instagram. Don't get me started on what this Sora release will do...
It changed my relationship consuming art online in general. When I see something that looks cool on the surface, my reaction is adversarial, one of suspicion. If it's recent, I default to assuming the piece is AI, and most of the time I don't have time or effort to sleuth the creator down and check. It's only been like a year, and it's already exhausting.
No one asked for AI art. I don't understand why corporations keep pushing it so much.
You are advocating for a particular (more inclusive) definition for 'thinker' which clashes with the author's, but his is equally valid. You're both just gesturing at different concepts and suggesting they should be tagged to that word.
OP raises a particular way to classify something about personalities, says he finds it quite interesting/discriminative, and calls that kind of personality a "thinker". You instead consider a "thinker" a broader category.
That feels like an empty disagreement (nobody is right on such matters) - the real debatable question of substance is whether the _concept_ OP is gesturing at has interesting discriminative power. That concept is something like "personalities which seem to value the act of thinking through a problem/problem solving itself rather than downstream result".