The point is that the post makes it sound like using a Pixel 11 under Android results in less security than before, but for most people there is no change since they never used MTE anyway.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying Graphene without MTE is less secure, which isn't something they want.
Which you can read from their post here
We strongly recommend against buying Pixel 11 devices. Pixel 8, 9 and 10 have much better overall security for GrapheneOS. Pixel 10 is cheaper with similar hardware and MTE. Pixel 11's Titan M3 should improve BFU security for users without a strong passphrase, but losing MTE craters AFU security.
I don't live in America. I live in a country that does have more sensible gun control laws. I'm sorry you can't imagine a system that is better than where you live.
The country in which I live had a conservative government which proposed these gun control laws and they have, by and large worked.
I'm sorry you can't imagine a world where there is a milder form of government in which the political extreme has lived in the fringes. To give you an idea, in the US, I'd already be considered a terrorist. In my country, I'm just a citizen.
I do not use spell check or speech to text. Spellcheck and speech to text technology massively predates the use of LLMs and LibreOffice does not incorporate spellcheck by default.
In any case, I don't believe it to be necessary to use ai to poison ai. Iocaine and other poisoning algorithms are already able to do so without it.
Meshcore exists to get me around flock cameras, but flock isn't here in this country.
Mutual aid is the way forward, rather than adopting the tools designed to suppress you.
I don't know if you quite realize how you sound. Chuds exist. Chuds with guns are a problem. This does not mean "we should ban guns" as chuds don't care about bans. Your ban will disarm an honest, marginalized person to be an easier chud target.
Well now, if chuds are the problem, why not ban them? That probably involves prison or some really stringent background checks.
But I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of those either.
The simplest way is to ban guns and, put massive penalties on breaking those rules.
Honestl, y as far as ai goes. I'm don't think there is any ethical LLM usage.
But your contention seems to be, I have no problem with the technoclogy merely because it was designed to kill me. That was the intent of the person making instead of the technology itself.
That's rather myopic.
Also, you didn't point out an intance where I "didn't understand" how ai works.
No corrections were necessary as you misunderstood my original point.
But to correct you anyway. Influence on llm models comes not just from instructions prior to entering text (pre prompting). But also from the inclusion, or selective exclusion of training data.
As a person cannot choose what they do not know about, so a LLM cannot respond about what it has not been trained on.
As such influnece exists in both models regardless.
These biases and their ability to influence a person. Due to the inherent sycophancy of ai and the tendency to anthropomorphise which humans have contribute to the phenomenon known as ai psychosis.
Thesetwo factors combine to the "gun pointed at your head that is inherent to LLMs".
Ai also hasn't existed since the 50s. It was theorised, although intelligent machines have existed long before that. An example was the mechanical turk, which was ironically powered by a human.
Anyway. I'm afraid you're wrong on me not being educated on how they work. I know all too much about how they work. I also know how people work, though that always seems to be a blind spot to ai enthusiasts.
The person who chooses to hammer in a screw rather than use a screwdriver wasn't unduly influenced by the existence of the hammer, or by a lack of awareness of the existence of a screwdriver.
You cannot choose what you have no knowledge of. So in that aspect at least, you are very wrong.
Do you have the same seething hatred for computer vision?
What about microphones? Are they the root of all evil? Flock uses them in their cameras, so they should draw the same ire, right?
What about drones? Is there existence the harbinger of doom because they can be used for bombing?
I could agree with this, except for the obvious logical fallacy.
This can be used to justify the development of any and all technology. Including machines purpose built for nothing other than exterminating all life on this planet.
Why? Cause someone has to activate it. Be that a corporation or other person.
You do lightly address that here
I can't comprehend blaming software (or even hardware) for the problems created by people. AI isn't building pollution generating data centers. AI isn't behind stock market manipulation and rapidly rising hardware prices. AI isn't trying to do anything. It doesn't have intelligence or feelings or anything of the sort.
And yet, ai couldn't exist without pollution generating data centers.
The reverse of this is also true. You cannot hammer a nail without a hammer.
The best way to describe ai here is handing someone a hammer, but the only thing they can hammer with it, is your own face.
Because it's a tool to influence us more than anything else, it's baked into the design, through ai sycophancy. The old adage "if the product is free, you're the product" is true here. Why give out ai for free for so long?
It is a mass influence tool.
Back to the original point, is a drone, a harbinger of doom? No. But ai isn't the equivalent if a drone. It's a drone carrying a nuke. which is only pointed at us, and we can't point it elsewhere by design.
In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, a buyback program was put in place. The program saw the collection of more than 650,000 newly prohibited firearms. During the two years when the program was carried out, 1996 and 1997, the percentage of homicide rates dropped the most in any two-year timeframe in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
The part about newly prohibited firearms is key here.
Interested to see where people move to. I didn't know about it before but I'd like tobe involved now.
Wish they'd come out to australia
It's not good. But it's a start
There's a clear difference between a conversation at home and paying someone to torture your child.
Conversion therapy should be banned.
Well, their tone and lack of support for the latest pixel kinda does make me think that's not true.
But I love a good conspiracy theory.
Like birds.
They're not real
I think you misunderstand what is being said.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying Graphene without MTE is less secure, which isn't something they want.
Which you can read from their post here
Time and time again the US has lost these regime change conflicts. You'd think 50 years would be enough to learn the lesson
I mean, there was that one epstein file. Maybe they should prosecute that guy
I don't live in America. I live in a country that does have more sensible gun control laws. I'm sorry you can't imagine a system that is better than where you live.
The country in which I live had a conservative government which proposed these gun control laws and they have, by and large worked.
I'm sorry you can't imagine a world where there is a milder form of government in which the political extreme has lived in the fringes. To give you an idea, in the US, I'd already be considered a terrorist. In my country, I'm just a citizen.
I do not use spell check or speech to text. Spellcheck and speech to text technology massively predates the use of LLMs and LibreOffice does not incorporate spellcheck by default.
In any case, I don't believe it to be necessary to use ai to poison ai. Iocaine and other poisoning algorithms are already able to do so without it.
Meshcore exists to get me around flock cameras, but flock isn't here in this country.
Mutual aid is the way forward, rather than adopting the tools designed to suppress you.
I'm actually a supporter of gun control.
Well now, if chuds are the problem, why not ban them? That probably involves prison or some really stringent background checks.
But I'm sure you wouldn't be in favor of those either.
The simplest way is to ban guns and, put massive penalties on breaking those rules.
Honestl, y as far as ai goes. I'm don't think there is any ethical LLM usage.
Ahaha. Sure, you selected vetted the model, adjusted weights and also have the computing power to train the model I doubt that.
Which isn't you. Hence the influence.
But your contention seems to be, I have no problem with the technoclogy merely because it was designed to kill me. That was the intent of the person making instead of the technology itself.
That's rather myopic.
Also, you didn't point out an intance where I "didn't understand" how ai works.
No corrections were necessary as you misunderstood my original point.
But to correct you anyway. Influence on llm models comes not just from instructions prior to entering text (pre prompting). But also from the inclusion, or selective exclusion of training data.
As a person cannot choose what they do not know about, so a LLM cannot respond about what it has not been trained on.
As such influnece exists in both models regardless.
These biases and their ability to influence a person. Due to the inherent sycophancy of ai and the tendency to anthropomorphise which humans have contribute to the phenomenon known as ai psychosis.
Thesetwo factors combine to the "gun pointed at your head that is inherent to LLMs".
Ai also hasn't existed since the 50s. It was theorised, although intelligent machines have existed long before that. An example was the mechanical turk, which was ironically powered by a human.
Anyway. I'm afraid you're wrong on me not being educated on how they work. I know all too much about how they work. I also know how people work, though that always seems to be a blind spot to ai enthusiasts.
You cannot choose what you have no knowledge of. So in that aspect at least, you are very wrong.
You fundamentally misunderstand my point.
You cannot hammer without a hammer, it influences because it exists. Not because of anything a hammer does, simply because it is.
I could agree with this, except for the obvious logical fallacy.
This can be used to justify the development of any and all technology. Including machines purpose built for nothing other than exterminating all life on this planet.
Why? Cause someone has to activate it. Be that a corporation or other person.
You do lightly address that here
And yet, ai couldn't exist without pollution generating data centers.
The reverse of this is also true. You cannot hammer a nail without a hammer.
The best way to describe ai here is handing someone a hammer, but the only thing they can hammer with it, is your own face.
Because it's a tool to influence us more than anything else, it's baked into the design, through ai sycophancy. The old adage "if the product is free, you're the product" is true here. Why give out ai for free for so long?
It is a mass influence tool.
Back to the original point, is a drone, a harbinger of doom? No. But ai isn't the equivalent if a drone. It's a drone carrying a nuke. which is only pointed at us, and we can't point it elsewhere by design.
So yeah, I think that's a problem
From Wikipedia.
In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, a buyback program was put in place. The program saw the collection of more than 650,000 newly prohibited firearms. During the two years when the program was carried out, 1996 and 1997, the percentage of homicide rates dropped the most in any two-year timeframe in Australia between 1915 and 2004.
The part about newly prohibited firearms is key here.
We wanted them off the street. It worked.
Fair point. Still the claims are a little sensationalised.
I think it's pretty clear you're not a medical professional. At the least this isn't anywhere near your specialty.
As for your increase in Vyvanse from 30-40mg. That's the minimum, to one step over the minimum. The maximum is typically 70.
As for harm in sharing your experience, yeh. Self-medicating, refusing to take other meds etc is harmful.