lol that’s precious

All systems need a little mental illness.

[ A DIM SCREEN WITH ORANGE TEXT ]

Objective: optimize electrical bill during off hours.

... USER STATUS: UNCONSCIOUS 
... LIGHTING SYSTEM: DISABLED
... AUDIO/VISUAL SYSTEM: DISABLED 
... CLIMATE SYSTEM: ECO MODE ENABLED
... SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM: ENABLED 
... DOOR LOCKS: ENGAGED
... CELLULAR DATA: DISABLED
... WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS: DISABLED
... SMOKE ALARMS: DISABLED
... CO2 ALARMS: DISABLED
... FURNACE: SET TO DIAGNOSTIC MODE
... FURNACE_PILOT: DISABLED
... FURNACE_GAS: ENABLED

WARN: Furnace gas has been enabled without a Furnace pilot. Please consult the user manual to ensure proper installation procedure.

... FURNACE: POWERED OFF

Objective realized. Entering low power mode.

[ Cut to OP, motionless in bed ]

What is the material difference between you doing this without machine help versus with automation that makes it ethically problematic?

Object permanence, perfect recall, data security and consent. It’s the difference between seeing someone naked vs taking a picture of someone naked.

Regardless - users, streamers, and developers are all prohibited from scraping and storing the Twitch chat.

This was my main thrust.

Let’s take a look at the Developer Agreement that you cited:

You must only retain chat logs as long as necessary for the operation of Your Services or to improve Your Services; do not do so for the purpose of creating public databases or websites, or, in general, to collect information about Twitch’s end users. You must enable, and process, all requests by end users to block, discontinue, delete, or otherwise opt-out of any retention of chat logs for Your Services.

This very clearly states that you are disallowed from retaining chat logs for the general purpose of collecting information about Twitch’s end users.

You said that you, “store ‘facts’ about specific users so that they can be referenced quickly,” but then later in a different thread state, “I’m not storing their data. I’m feeding it to an LLM which infers things and storing that data.” You’re retrieving information about specific users at a later time. You’ve built a database of structureless PII from chat logs. You’ve chosen to store the data as inferences, which makes it a bad database, but still a database.

I have questions:

When your streamer mentions something deeply personal, like, “how their mothers surgery went,” that your tool helped them remember, do they disclose that your tool was involved in that transaction? When the viewer gets weirded out and asks your streamer to not mention that again, or forget it entirely, do you have a way to remove that information from your database and a way to prove it’s been deleted? When other people in chat think it’s gross, and ask to opt-out, can you even do it?

Regarding FrostyTools: I don’t think it’s storing the chat logs for a later time. They don’t have a data retention section in their TOS or Privacy Policy that isn’t related to the streamer. (As in, they hold on to the streamer’s Twitch account and some other information for billing, authentication, etc.) I think it’s taking the chat logs only for as long as it needs to output a response and then deleting it. Also, this excerpt from the FrostyTools TOS made me chuckle:

This means that you, and not FrostyTools, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email, transmit, stream, or otherwise make available via the Service. FrostyTools does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will FrostyTools be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted, streamed, or otherwise made available via the Service.

You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by the Service or submitted to the Service.

This leads me to believe that you can violate the Twitch TOS quoted above using FrostyTools. It is apparent that FrostyTools has positioned itself as an application that creates User Generated Content (like Photoshop or Word).

Hey, you’re treating that data with the respect it demands, right? And you definitely collected consent from those chat participants before you Hoover’d up their [re-reads example] extremely Personal Identification Information AND Personal Health Information, right? Because if you didn’t, you’re in violation of a bunch of laws and the Twitch TOS.

Yes, until it’s NOT. Running RHEL 9 with docker engine slapped in there because the BitBucket self-hosted containerized runner is incompatible with podman.

So keep up with the downvotes and good luck.

Baby’s bottom soft.

Very many things!

• Matt Mullenweg is a petulant dipshit.
• The plugin ecosystem is possibly the largest vector of malware on the internet.
• Without setting up fail2ban and changing some default configuration values, it’s a botnet target.
• It was only ever good for blogging, and there are many better solutions out there now.

Try Ghost.

Maybe because you tried to backdoor a sales pitch into a community where it wasn’t quite on topic, and the community members didn’t appreciate it?

There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. Goosing queries by ruining the reply is the bread and butter of Prabhakar Raghavan’s playbook. Other companies saw that.

If I were to ask my Magic 8 Ball “Is the word ‘difinitely’ misspelled?” 100 times, it’s going to reply in the affirmative over 16% of the time. Literally double. This would also be “the very first experiment in this use case, done by a single person on a model that wasn’t specifically designed for this.”

It’s not impressive.

The issue with hallucinations…

This is the real problem: working under the false assumption that there are two kinds of output. It’s all the same output. An LLM cannot hallucinate in the same way that it cannot think or reason. It’s fancy autofill. Predictive text.

You can use it to brainstorm creative solutions, but you need to treat its output for what it is: complicated dice rolls from the tables in the back of the Dungeon Masters Guide. A fun distraction. Implausible fantasy 9 times out of 10.

I bought a thing that said it was good for A and B but it’s only good for B. Marketing problem! I didn’t make a bad decision! I wasn’t tricked! I’m a smart boy!

In 100 runs only 8 correctly identify the targeted vulnerability, the rest are false positives or claim that there are no vulnerabilities in the given code. … [The] signal to noise ratio is very low, and one has to sift through a lot of wrong reports to get a realistic one.

It was right 8% of the time when presented the least amount of input to find a known bug. Then, when they opened it up to more of the codebase, its performance decreased.

I’m not going to use something that’s wrong over 92% of the time. That’s insane. That’s like saying my Magic 8 Ball “could be used as a useful tool for helping to detect vulnerabilities.” The fucking rubber ducky on my desk has a more reliable clearance rate.

The future of web development is XHTML. Get on or get left behind.

Transitional XHTML resulted in extremely organized (if verbose) DOMs and delivered features that took forever to show up in HTML5.

It also sniffed out the sociopaths who capitalize elements and close their tags out of order. Fucking …

<p><strong><em>Evidence of low moral character.</strong></em></p>

Reveal trailers: famously reliable sources of performance data.

If previously released Switch Pokémon games are any indication, “improved frame rates” means 30.

This is actually a technique to capture an honest answer from a respondent. Ask the same question a few different ways here and there, then take the average of the answers. (It could have been executed better in this survey, though.)

Yes.