@paco @BenAveling it is just a stupid electronic device
-
Marlinspike was kicked out of Signal after he pushed a cryptocurrency nonsense thing (in which he was an investor) into the app.
He's been trying to make money from the latest nonsense fad for a while. I'm only surprised his name wasn't on some Metaverse thing.
@david_chisnall @paco thanks for the update, i stand corrected
-
@paco It's also only private for his customers. It does nothing to stop the LLMs from stealing private data. It's just a more private way to invade others' privacy.
-
@paco It's also only private for his customers. It does nothing to stop the LLMs from stealing private data. It's just a more private way to invade others' privacy.
@fabio I don't follow. Nobody can fix privacy for stuff they don't own. So whatever we think of this privacy-preserving LLM service, of course it doesn't change the privacy invasions of the other LLMs in the market.
"Confer" would tell you that this is the reason people should use them and not the other big AI players.
My whole point is that the tech is badly broken and using broken tech privately is not a winning proposition.
-
@godofbiscuits Maybe I am more of the target audience.
I’m not gay, I just want to be supportive. I don’t have a use for a .gay domain, because it is too specific. I don’t do anything where “gay” is the theme or the content, and it isn’t part of my identity.
So I can buy a funny domain .meow, do something playful that suits my needs, and I’ll be supporting lgbtq+ causes while I’m at it. I guess that’s probably why I’m enthusiastic.
@paco I think you made my point FOR me.
-
@paco I think you made my point FOR me.
@godofbiscuits Great. So at least we're on the same wavelength.
I don't want to provoke irritation in (or support a project that irritates) the very people I want to support. Perhaps what you're saying is that this is going to have low appeal to people who themselves are part of the LGBTQ community? I can understand that.
But is it bad? Is there a reason that well-intentioned folks like me should oppose it instead of support it? Is it more offensive than beneficial? I'm genuinely asking.
-
@fabio I don't follow. Nobody can fix privacy for stuff they don't own. So whatever we think of this privacy-preserving LLM service, of course it doesn't change the privacy invasions of the other LLMs in the market.
"Confer" would tell you that this is the reason people should use them and not the other big AI players.
My whole point is that the tech is badly broken and using broken tech privately is not a winning proposition.
@paco I'm saying it would only be a "privacy-preserving LLM service" if all LLM models it gives access to were trained without infringing on anyones privacy. Helping people to privately infringe on others privacy is not preserving privacy.
-
@tiotasram
So the point of SGX is that there's an intel-signed key that's only accessible inside the SGX enclave than can be used to sign messages to a recipient off-device to attest that the code is running inside the enclave; it can be validated against intel's CA. The idea is good in theory, but in practice there have been too many SGX vulnerabilities for me to want to rely on it, hence my comment.
@paco -
@paco I'm about to get mine too, and thinking about buying two
-
@godofbiscuits Great. So at least we're on the same wavelength.
I don't want to provoke irritation in (or support a project that irritates) the very people I want to support. Perhaps what you're saying is that this is going to have low appeal to people who themselves are part of the LGBTQ community? I can understand that.
But is it bad? Is there a reason that well-intentioned folks like me should oppose it instead of support it? Is it more offensive than beneficial? I'm genuinely asking.
@paco i'm of the mind that it’s bad. Demurring/deferring to the idea that "gay" = even controversial coming from LGBTQ people themselves is a form of shame.
And shame has killed a lot of us.
-
-
-
@godofbiscuits Great. So at least we're on the same wavelength.
I don't want to provoke irritation in (or support a project that irritates) the very people I want to support. Perhaps what you're saying is that this is going to have low appeal to people who themselves are part of the LGBTQ community? I can understand that.
But is it bad? Is there a reason that well-intentioned folks like me should oppose it instead of support it? Is it more offensive than beneficial? I'm genuinely asking.
@paco you could just donate to LGBTQ causes directly.
-
-
@tiotasram
So, the claim with SGX is that if you trust intel to have done the implementation right and not have their keys compromised, then you can know the hash of the code that's running on the server and that that code is isolated from the rest of the OS and firmware. With open source server code and reproducible builds, you can then confirm that the server is running the code inside the enclave that it should be, and with ends to end encryption between you and the enclave (and keys held inside the enclave), that nothing in between you and the enclave has touched it. It's a good model, with two problems: the SGX code has to talk to the GPU and somehow keep all of that interaction inside the trust zone of the enclave, and intel and Nvidia need to have done their jobs correctly. The fact that they don't mention encrypted GPU memory etc. is the first big red flag for me. Even with that, though, SGX has had a lot of bugs over the years, and by most accounts Nvidia's attempts at GPU enclaves are much less secure.
@paco -
@paco Other things being equal I prefer a mix of genders on a planet.
-
@paco Other things being equal I prefer a mix of genders on a planet.
@floatybirb agreed. Now, if you asked me whether I would want to live on a planet that was governed by all women or governed by all men, I’d pick all women every time. But population? Yeah. Variety is better.
-
@davidculley I remember the stupid cryptocurrency thing, but I didn’t realise Moxie was driving that or that it led to him leaving Signal. I didn’t pay close enough attention. It all fits a bit better now.
-
@paco this goes beyond basic compute resources and is also applied to user attention and familiarity. things get changed constantly because the developers think a new design is better, without attaching any cost to user discomfort and the time/energy it takes to relearn the new way, or the time/energy that needed to be invested in learning the previous way.
modern Linux is rapidly following the same trajectory, unfortunately. in terms of sane alternatives we're basically left with the BSDs.
