• 1 Post
  • 329 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 21st, 2023

help-circle






  • The claim above was off the top of my head, but I’ve found multiple pages of results describing the panic that ensued.

    Now, Microsoft (Copilot and Github) are less than clear on what exactly is used for training, but the general consensus seems to be, that they don’t train on private repositories. Though there appears to be some confusion about this, especially regarding Microsoft’s honesty about not using loopholes (this article might be faked, I haven’t tried confirming it, though, this topic is a shit show ripe with miscommunication, misinformation, and quite a lot of confusion and fear regardless).

    It appears that the specific issue I was referring to required a human error for copilot being able to train on the private repositories. Namely, some unfortunate fool temporarily making the repository public (in which case it obviously isn’t private anymore, and therefore free for grabs by scrapers). Usually this wouldn’t be a problem, since no indexer or scraper can check all of Github all at once all the time, so the chance of a briefly exposed repository being cached is rather small, albeit always there.

    That said, Copilot, Bing, and Github are likely better integrated than Bing simply wasting resources on continuously scraping Github for new repositories. I personally imagine that Github saving resources by sending a signal to Bing when a repository is made public isn’t entirely unlikely (that’s something I might do, harboring no ill intentions), meaning that it is possible (though in no way confirmed) that Bing punishes briefly exposed Github repositories instantly by forever caching them.

    Is this 100% Microsoft being predatory? No, obviously not, since it requires a user error to happen in the first place, and since Copilot is technically only trained on public or exposed data. Though, Microsoft learning about this rather scammy behavior and simply classifying it a “low-impact-severity” and disabling the Bing cache for humans (but apparently not Copilot) doesn’t sit right with me. I’m sure that they knew exactly which kind of data they were working with during dataset sanitation, so they could have chosen not to use sensitive data or at least inform exposed clients that they are adding their cached secrets to Copilot.


  • Wasn’t it revealed that Microsoft was training their Copilot on Github repositories, including private ones such as paying coorporations believing their source code to be safe and secure, resulting in secrets suddenly being made semi-public?

    I feel that there were other incidents too, though I can’t remember them off the top of my head. Definitely not a place I’d recommend anyone to keep anything they love, even if they keep to best practices and don’t store secrets in their repositories.


  • Ekky@sopuli.xyztomemes@lemmy.worldYou fools.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    Ignoring space for a moment, it depends whether you see time as a single - linear - dimension, or as a set of n dimensions.

    If time can only exist as a single dimension, then yes, we’d have a paradox.

    If time is two-(or more)-dimensional, then you’d just step into a parallel timeline/dimension for every change made, forsaking the old timeline Steins’ Gate-style.

    Obviously, 2+ dimensional time cannot be proven, so it’s just a fun thought experiment. It’s not entirely unlike the hypothetical 4th dimension of space - which would leave space-time with 4 dimensions of space and one of time.


  • Ekky@sopuli.xyztoComic Strips@lemmy.worldISO 8601
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    That’s what we Europeans call a “petty answer to the disgrace that is Amarican military time” (not the be confused with regular Amarican time and dates, which don’t allow overflow, as far as I’m aware). The date described above is clearly “the second of March, 2015” or 2015-03-02.


  • Well, I got that, but that’s also pretty much the only thing it mentions. What were the results? Was it better then the last generation? How will it change warfare in the future (beyond Gaza)?

    I’m gonna ignore the deeply unethical application under which this mysterious and barely named new rocket was tested, since that hardly is relevant to this community and better discussed elsewhere.

    EDIT: Sorry, that last paragraph should have an “I think” in there, since I’m no mod and am purely voicing my opinion about low quality and (what I find to be) barely relevant posts in this community.


  • Hmm, this seems more about economics and politics than technology.

    Like, what exactly is the new type of Bar rocket and how does it compare to the older rockets? I see it being mentioned as a replacement for Rumach rockets, but the only details are that it’s got some unnamed “guidance mechanism specifically designed for difficult combat environments” and that it’s rapid fire (compared to some other unnamed rocket?).




  • Ekky@sopuli.xyztoRough Roman Memes@lemmy.worldMarcus Aurelius FACTCHECKED
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 days ago

    You’re thinking like an academic, which is often alien and “wrong” to the broader populace, just like a properly labelled graph (according to a previous discussion on Lemmy, lol).

    But I agree. In engineering one quickly learns the difference between the “perfect” and “real” world. In the perfect world, you can assume that 1+1 always equals 2, gravity always goes down, wind resistance is 0, and our scientific model (of any given time and version, choice is yours) is always correct.

    In the real world nothing makes sense, nothing fits, you’re lucky if 1+1=2 within a ±0.1 error, and did you just discover the topic for another weird research project? Shit.

    And does @kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 's Mt. St. Helens really exist? No clue, I’ll take anyone’s word for it. One could drag me up some random mountain and tell me that’s it, but, in the end, I’d just be spewing someone else’s opinion. (which is good, agreement must be had to do anything productive, but we’re currently talking objectivity, and not agreement.)