Tootfinder

#Wordle 1,493 6/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ <1% of 216,876 (969)
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 1% of 77 (110)
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜ 0 of 2 (10)
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟨 0 of 0 (3)
⬜🟩⬜🟨🟩 0 of 0 (1)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
WordleBot
Skill 86/99
Luck 15/99
after guess 4, I'd eliminated 16 letters and knew 2 of the remaining 10 were in the word. I thought of 2 words that fit, 1st didn't work as 5th guess, 2nd was the answer as 6th guess.
Wow, that's a pretty low luck score for 6 guesses, I see the luck of the 6 guesses was 15, 6, 4, 16, 33, -
I'm quite happy with the progression of my guesses today, not sure what the bot will think...
Well I missed a word, but my 5th guess did eliminate it.

Das ist Terror.
„Landesweit hätten 145 Frauen Anzeige erstattet, 21 davon in Paris, weil sie mit einer Spritze gestochen worden seien, teilte das Innenministerium mit. Zwölf Tatverdächtige seien festgenommen worden.
Zuvor habe es in den sozialen Medien offenbar Aufrufe gegeben, Frauen während der Fête de la Musique anzugreifen und mit Spritzen zu stechen, so das Ministerium.“
Mysteriöse Angriffe - Über 100 Spritzenattacken auf Frauen bei Fête de la Musique

Mittwoch: Autonomy-Schadenersatz für HP, Sharepoint-Angriffe aus China
Übernahmeschäden geringer als beklagt Microsoft nennt Sharepoint-Angreifer Sportmodell von Opels E-SUV IT-Fachkräfte für EU Apple gegen Spyware im Iran

Overly academic/distanced ethical discussions
Had a weird interaction with @/brainwane@social.coop just now. I misinterpreted one of their posts quoting someone else and I think the combination of that plus an interaction pattern where I'd assume their stance on something and respond critically to that ended up with me getting blocked. I don't have hard feelings exactly, and this post is only partly about this particular person, but I noticed something interesting by the end of the conversation that had been bothering me. They repeatedly criticized me for assuming what their position was, but never actually stated their position. They didn't say: "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, it's actually Y." They just said "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, please don't assume my position!" I get that it's annoying to have people respond to a straw man version of your argument, but when I in response asked some direct questions about what their position was, they gave some non-answers and then blocked me. It's entirely possible it's a coincidence, and they just happened to run out of patience on that iteration, but it makes me take their critique of my interactions a bit less seriously. I suspect that they just didn't want to hear what I was saying, while at the same time they wanted to feel as if they were someone who values public critique and open discussion of tricky issues (if anyone reading this post also followed our interaction and has a different opinion of my behavior, I'd be glad to hear it; it's possible In effectively being an asshole here and it would be useful to hear that if so).
In any case, the fact that at the end of the entire discussion, I'm realizing I still don't actually know their position on whether they think the AI use case in question is worthwhile feels odd. They praised the system on several occasions, albeit noting some drawbacks while doing so. They said that the system was possibly changing their anti-AI stance, but then got mad at me for assuming this meant that they thought this use-case was justified. Maybe they just haven't made up their mind yet but didn't want to say that?
Interestingly, in one of their own blog posts that got linked in the discussion, they discuss a different AI system, and despite listing a bunch of concrete harms, conclude that it's okay to use it. That's fine; I don't think *every* use of AI is wrong on balance, but what bothered me was that their post dismissed a number of real ethical issues by saying essentially "I haven't seen calls for a boycott over this issue, so it's not a reason to stop use." That's an extremely socially conformist version of ethics that doesn't sit well with me. The discussion also ended up linking this post: https://chelseatroy.com/2024/08/28/does-ai-benefit-the-world/ which bothered me in a related way. In it, Troy describes classroom teaching techniques for introducing and helping students explore the ethics of AI, and they seem mostly great. They avoid prescribing any particular correct stance, which is important when teaching given the power relationship, and they help students understand the limitations of their perspectives regarding global impacts, which is great. But the overall conclusion of the post is that "nobody is qualified to really judge global impacts, so we should focus on ways to improve outcomes instead of trying to judge them." This bothers me because we actually do have a responsibility to make decisive ethical judgments despite limitations of our perspectives. If we never commit to any ethical judgment against a technology because we think our perspective is too limited to know the true impacts (which I'll concede it invariably is) then we'll have to accept every technology without objection, limiting ourselves to trying to improve their impacts without opposing them. Given who currently controls most of the resources that go into exploration for new technologies, this stance is too permissive. Perhaps if our objection to a technology was absolute and instantly effective, I'd buy the argument that objecting without a deep global view of the long-term risks is dangerous. As things stand, I think that objecting to the development/use of certain technologies in certain contexts is necessary, and although there's a lot of uncertainly, I expect strongly enough that the overall outcomes of objection will be positive that I think it's a good thing to do.
The deeper point here I guess is that this kind of "things are too complicated, let's have a nuanced discussion where we don't come to any conclusions because we see a lot of unknowns along with definite harms" really bothers me.

"Some AI prompts could cause 50 times more CO₂ emissions than others, researchers find"
#AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Technology

Some AI prompts could cause 50 times more CO₂ emissions than others, researchers find
No matter which questions we ask an AI, the model will come up with an answer. To produce this information—regardless of whether the answer is correct or not—the model uses tokens. Tokens are words or parts of words that are converted into a string of numbers that can be processed by the LLM.

Cool
#Linux #Windows # Ubuntu…

What would a Microsoft engineer do to Ubuntu? AnduinOS is the answer
: It's not radical, but it is slim and pretty – usually a winning combination

Noch einige der zuletzt hier besonders häufig geteilten #News:
Kritische Sharepoint-Sicherheitslücke: Erste Patches für "ToolShell" sind da

#Wordle 1,433 5/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ <1% of 212,891 (265)
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟨 0 of 58 (10)
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 0 of 0 (2)
⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 0 of 0 (1)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
WordleBot
Skill 97/99
Luck 38/99
Wasn't sure that last guess was really a good 5th guess, but decided it would provide useful info even if wrong.
Look at that I actually narrowed it to 2 and used my friend @… 's patented method of trying all the wrong answers first to get it! 😁 She said she's going to put it in the public domain, so anyone else is also free to use it!

Junk-Traffic-Flut: Rekord-DDoS-Angriff auf Provider mit 7,3 TBit/s
Groß angelegte DDoS-Attacken werden immer heftiger. Cloudflare meldet einen Angriff mit einer Datenmenge von 7,3 Terabit pro Sekunde auf einen Host-Provider.

Russland: Schon 56.000 Internetseiten gesperrt, Suche nach Kreml-Kritik strafbar
Vor allem seit dem Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine schränkt Russland das freie Internet weiter ein. Der Digitalminister sieht darin aber kein Problem.