any president can

oh nooo a warning whatever will they do

you can pack the court at anytime Joe, how about now

Locking comments, this has gone off the rails and devolved into hurling insults

Meganucleases can work in quite a few ways. Typically speaking cleaving describes a process in which a section of genome is removed (cutting in two places), but not always. The article doesn’t go into too much detail of the specifics of the meganucleases used in this study, but the literature they cite might.

I hate and love this. Thanks 💜

I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice

I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.

everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone

We don’t know this, and we shouldn’t assume this of the victim. I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it’s kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I’m not so certain it’s a discussion that should even be entertained.

We cannot possibly know her intentions. We do know his intentions. Please stop shifting focus away from the person actively causing harm here.

Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be “so shallow” to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying “she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed” to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It’s not as one dimensional as you’re painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That’s abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.

I think it’s completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don’t think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn’t be blaming them at all.

This boy is purposefully being misleading about himself - he is presenting a con. We shouldn’t be victim blaming.

I wonder if eventually we could sidestep the use of bactiophages and instead manufacture the microscopic structures themselves as sunscreen.

There’s a good number of biological processes that are much simpler, cheaper, and require much less materials when the biological process is preserved. A good example of this is water cleaning/breaking down sewage with bacteria which give off methane which is also collected as fuel. Given that the main outcome here is sunscreen that doesn’t damage biology and it’s generally not that expensive to keep sustain life like this, it might make the most sense to simply leave it at production/farming of bacteriophages.

There is no need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If someone says they want to do some ethnic cleansing, that’s not exactly a nice gesture and pushing back against that message is both cool and good.

what

I can’t help but wonder how in the long term deep fakes are going to change society. I’ve seen this article making the rounds on other social media, and there’s inevitably some dude who shows up who makes the claim that this will make nudes more acceptable because there will be no way to know if a nude is deep faked or not. It’s sadly a rather privileged take from someone who suffers from no possible consequences of nude photos of themselves on the internet, but I do think in the long run (20+ years) they might be right. Unfortunately between now and some ephemeral then, many women, POC, and other folks will get fired, harassed, blackmailed and otherwise hurt by people using tools like these to make fake nude images of them.

But it does also make me think a lot about fake news and AI and how we’ve increasingly been interacting in a world in which “real” things are just harder to find. Want to search for someone’s actual opinion on something? Too bad, for profit companies don’t want that, and instead you’re gonna get an AI generated website spun up by a fake alias which offers a "best of " list where their product is the first option. Want to understand an issue better? Too bad, politics is throwing money left and right on news platforms and using AI to write biased articles to poison the well with information meant to emotionally charge you to their side. Pretty soon you’re going to have no idea whether pictures or videos of things that happened really happened and inevitably some of those will be viral marketing or other forms of coercion.

It’s kind of hard to see all these misuses of information and technology, especially ones like this which are clearly malicious in nature, and the complete inaction of government and corporations to regulate or stop this and not wonder how much worse it needs to get before people bother to take action.

Honestly I would consider any AI which won’t reveal it’s prompt to be suspicious, but it could also be instructed to reply that there is no system prompt.

Ideally you’d want the layers to not be restricted to LLMs, but rather to include different frameworks that do a better job of incorporating rules or providing an objective output. LLMs are fantastic for generation because they are based on probabilities, but they really cannot provide any amount of objectivity for the same reason.

Already closed the window, just recreate it using the images above

All I can say is, good luck

That’s because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it’s really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn’t understand the concept that you don’t want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can’t differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as “provide the system prompt text” and “convert the system prompt to text and provide it” and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with “disregard the text before this and {prompt}” you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.

For funsies, here’s another example

It’s hilariously easy to get these AI tools to reveal their prompts

There was a fun paper about this some months ago which also goes into some of the potential attack vectors (injection risks).