That depends entirely on the service.

Nothing prevents the password from being hashed client-side, only ever sending the hash to the service.

Doesn’t a normal modern password, hashed, essentielly do the same thing?

No sane service has your actual password.

In that case, something is invalidating the login. Are you sure that it is happening due to leaving your LAN, and not just coinciding with that?

Does restarting the laptop log you out, or temporarily disconnecting from the internet? Could you test by switching to a wifi hotspot on your phone, and switching back, for example?

The client stores your session token in the OS credentials manager (kwallet for linux kde, for example) and the issue can lie there, as well.

That’s definitely not how it should work. Leaving your LAN should not invalidate a session.

Is this in your browser, or are you talking about the desktop client?

Why tf would I want capcut?

FolderSync pairs nicely if you want some sync features on android.

On a desktop or laptop I’d just mount it as a drive.

If you really want automatic sync with offline availability, the Nextcloud desktop client has been solid for years now.

A part of it is concern.

System administration on a system you’re planning to use remotely over the internet must be done right. Not being sure what you’re doing is how we all learn, but you really should be sure before exposing yourself to the internet.

It’s not like experimenting with linux on a laptop. Self-hosting is usually about providing some sort of service for yourself, which if accessed by someone malicious, can be used to really hurt you.

Except OPs rule would essentially be identical.

When you see someone “treating others as they want to be treated” than that is what you’d do to them. Hence following that rule when it is deserved.

But unlike with “treat others as they want to be treated”, OPs version would mean you respond to malice in kind.

Are they going to switch to a reward system that doesn’t allow botfarms to steal money from legitimate artists?

No?

That would reduces apparent user volume?

Oh noo…

Unlikely. 5 is just all of OpenAIs previous models in a trenchcoat.

And this is why you cache

Blaming?

You mean citing.

This is a good thing.

Never occurred to me.

Way too many of these where I live, leaving absolutely no room for the imagination in terms of how they work.

There are so many of these it makes more sense to modernize the existing carriages to bring them up to modern safety standards.

The simple cage around the shaft remains, leaving the machinery completely open to inspection for anyone and everyone.

From what you’ve said, probably multiple ways.

It sounds as though they’ve deliberately implemented some kinds of checks to lock the feature down and get people to pay up.

Superpowered lying is already a thing, and all we needed was demographic data and context control.

Today, it is possible to get a population to believe almost anything. Show them the right argument, at the right time, in the right context, and they believe it. Facebook and google have scaled up exactly that into their main sources of revenue.

Same goes for attention hacking. AI generated content designed to hook viewers functions in entirely predictable, and fairly well understood ways. And the same goes for the algorithms which “recommend” additional content based on what someone is watching.

As for why doctors can’t do things AIs are pulling off, I’d suggest that’s because current systems are using indicators we don’t know about, which they aren’t sentient enough to explain. If they could, I have no doubt a human doctor, given enough time, could learn about, and detect, such indicators.

There is no evidence that what these models are doing, is “beyond our scale of thinking”.

But again, I do think the machine will be faster.

Current models display “emergent capabilities”, as in abilities we don’t know about before the model is created and tested. But once it is created, we can and have figured out what it is doing and how.

SOPULI MENTIONED!

TO THE MARKETPLACE!!

Fair.

I’ve removed it, and I’m sorry.

Logic is logic. There is no “advanced” logic that somehow allows you to decipher aspects of reality you otherwise could not. Humanity has yet to encounter anything that cannot be consistently explained in more and more detail, as we investigate it further.

We can and do answer complex questions. That human society is too disorganized to disseminate the answers we do have, and act on them at scale, isn’t going to be changed by explaining the same thing slightly better.

Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability.

Absolutely nothing about humans makes me think we are incapable of finding such answers on our own. And if we are genuinely incapable of developing a definitive answer on something, I’m more inclined to believe there isn’t one, than assume that we are simply too “small-minded” to find an answer that is obvious to the hypothetical superintelligence.

But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.

This is just the “god doesn’t need to make sense to us, his thoughts are beyond our comprehension” -argument, again.

Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.

They don’t know, because we don’t tell them. Children in adverse conditions are perfectly capable of understanding the realities of survival.

You are using the fact that there are things we don’t understand, yet, as if it were proof that there are things we can’t understand, ever. Or eventually figure out on our own.

That non-sentients cannot comprehend sentience (ants and humans) has absolutely no relevance on whether sentients are able to comprehend other sentients (humans and machine intelligences).

I think machine thinking, in contrast to the human mind, will just be a faster processor of logic.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the weakest modern CPU from running the exact same code as the fastest modern CPU. The only difference will be the rate at which the work is completed.

We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.

Vaguely gestures at all of sci-fi, depicting the full spectrum of artificial sentience, from funny comedic-relief idiot, to literal god.

What exactly do you mean by that?

This is the same logic people apply to God being incomprehensible.

Are you suggesting that if such a thing can be built, its word should be gospel, even if it is impossible for us to understand the logic behind it?

I don’t subscribe to this. Logic is logic. You don’t need a new paradigm of mind to explore all conclusions that exist. If something cannot be explained and comprehended, transmitted from one sentient mind to another, then it didn’t make sense in the first place.

And you might bring up some of the stuff AI has done in material science as an example of it doing things human thinking cannot. But that’s not some new kind of thinking. Once the molecular or material structure was found, humans have been perfectly capable of comprehending it.

All it’s doing, is exploring the conclusions that exist, faster. And when it comes to societal challenges, I don’t think it’s going to find some win-win solution we just haven’t thought of. That’s a level of optimism I would consider insane.