"1 in 10 people believe they are not at risk when using illicit sources to watch TV, film or sports."
ONE in ten? Man, they're even bad at cherry picking statistics 😂
They even cite a study with only 1,000 participants for their statistic that "32% OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF FRAUD"
In the title, at least. The body of that claim's card says that it's the people, or someone they know that have been victims of fraud.
Gosh, I hate dishonest scare marketing campaigns.
I find it indescribably funny that no matter what, every news site somehow manages to always put a mobile app install screen with the company's product as the banner image for their articles, even in this case, when I think most people would have probably never even thought of Steam as a mobile app, only as PC software.
The same way you do it digitally: add a thin layer of DRM that gives you legal protection, but doesn't actually do much on a technical level. Check a license key from the game drive in the same way you'd check the key of software someone paid you for, then let the code run on their machine.
DRM itself isn't a very good way of protecting media. The functional protections are almost nonexistent due to the nature of it. If you want to let someone play/watch/read content, you can't also make it magically impossible for them to just take the code/video/text, and copy paste it somewhere else. The only thing DRM does is give you the legal right to invoke the state as a way of enforcing copyright law against anyone who 'pirates' your work.
Any fraud that could happen likely wouldn't be stopped no matter what they tried. (or rather, if they did nothing protection-wise)
And republicans will still say that mainstream media has a heavy left bias, and they don't trust them.
"Why sex?"
10/10 starter question, no notes.
Apple just can't resist making ridiculous margins from their customers, even when their devices do allow for upgrades to the default configuration.
For instance, with a Mac Pro, you have to pay an extra $800 to go from 64gb to 128gb of memory. For $800, you could get about 384gb of ram in 64gb sticks from a different vendor.
I have never once found an "AI" feature integrated by a corporation useful.
I have only ever found "AI" useful when it's unobtrusive, and something I chose to use manually. Sometimes an LLM is useful to use, but I don't need it shilled to me inside a search bar or in a support chat that won't solve my problem until I bypass the LLM.
I've used LLMs to save me hours of time reformatting text and old notes, and restructure explanations so I can better understand and share them, used AI speech to text models to transcribe my voice notes, and used diffusion models to generate better quality mockups for designs that were later commissioned in better quality, with no need for any changes.
I can understand not liking AI, or not needing it yourself, but acting as if it has no use is frankly ridiculous. You might not use it, but other people do.
I think this says more about corporation's attempts to integrate "AI" into everything, instead of it being a user choice, than it does about the technology itself.
At least they seem to have addressed some of the security implications:
The database will be encrypted at rest and will require authentication (and periodic reauthentication)
The feature will also be off by default
But of course, nothing on the front of whether or not Microsoft will collect data on you using it. We can trust them there, I'm sure.
Surely they would never add even more telemetry that reports back nearly all of your important online activity to Microsoft.
Right?
Many people attending school, primarily higher education like college, are privileged because education costs money, and those with more money are often more privileged. That does not mean school itself is about privilege, it means people with privilege can afford to attend it more easily. Of course, grants, scholarships, and savings still exist, and help many people afford education.
"Filtering" doesn't exactly provide enough context to make sense in this argument.
Indoctrination, if we go by the definition that defines it as teaching someone to accept a doctrine uncritically, is the opposite of what most educational institutions teach. If you understood how much effort goes into teaching critical thought as a skill to be used within and outside of education, you'd likely see how this doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, the heavily diverse range of beliefs, people, and viewpoints on campuses often provides a more well-rounded, diverse understanding of the world, and of the people's views within it, than a non-educational background can.
"Control" is just another fearmongering word. What control, exactly? How is it being applied?
They're not tricking students, they're tricking LLMs that students are using to get out of doing the work required of them to get a degree. The entire point of a degree is to signify that you understand the skills and topics required for a particular field. If you don't want to actually get the knowledge signified by the degree, then you can put "I use ChatGPT and it does just as good" on your resume, and see if employers value that the same.
All math homework can be done by a calculator. All the writing courses I did throughout elementary and middle school would have likely graded me higher if I'd used a modern LLM. All the history assignment's questions could have been answered with access to Wikipedia.
But if I'd done that, I wouldn't know math, I would know no history, and I wouldn't be able to properly write any long-form content.
Even when technology exists that can replace functions the human brain can do, we don't just sacrifice all attempts to use the knowledge ourselves because this machine can do it better, because without that, we would be limiting our future potential.
The prompt is likely colored the same as the page to make it visually invisible to the human eye upon first inspection.
And I'm sorry to say, but often times, the students who are the most careless, unwilling to even check work, and simply incapable of doing work themselves, are usually the same ones who use ChatGPT, and don't even proofread the output.