• 1 Post
  • 18 Comments
Joined 20 days ago
cake
Cake day: February 3rd, 2026

help-circle




  • The question can go the other way as well; what proof does people have that Discord is outright lying in their communication? All the communication indicates that they have actually taken steps to minimize the privacy impact. Importantly using local processing and only storing if it’s successful or not, even if that means that it can likely be bypassed (important web dev rule, never trust the client side).

    Now introducing the Persona system is very concerning, and also a reason I don’t think it’s an overreaction anymore. Even if they claim they only save the data for longer than 7 days, the connection to Palantir and Peter Thiel is extremely troubling and erodes the trust. I mean it comes down to me not trusting them as much as Discord.

    To expand on your question on why they wouldn’t be as evil as possible, it comes down to whether or not you believe that all developers and product managers are evil or not. I have worked for a decade for a few IT heavy companies and yeah, there are shit going on, but it’s mostly due to laziness, or product managers wanting numbers and pretty graphs of user behaviors (when it comes to privacy and data sharing).

    The leak of the 70k UK identities is an interesting case. It’s often framed as if the processor was hacked but it was actually the normal support system where they handled appeals. The real mistake was that Discord didn’t properly think through appeal handling and it is probably attributable to a mistake/laziness then intentional malice.

    Of course a bit different for the macro social networks, whose primary income stream is selling ads and they want to build behavior profiles because that allows them to argue that advertisers get more value out of their platform. The point I want to make is that your real name and photo doesn’t actually have any value for the companies, because they already do have everything they need from your activity. It does have risks and liabilities though if nothing else due to GDPR.


  • This article feels a bit like ragebait.

    Yes, this happened once with a company that went bankrupt 2 years after launching their product. They seem to have designed an exceptionally poor product. How does this mean that the enormous engineering failures of this small startup applies to all other car brands?

    Most cars have a very clear separation between core driving software and the infotainment, and the vast majority will never have any software updates so what works, will continue to work (or the other way around). At worst you’ll loose stuff like remote commands, wheatear info, list of charging points/map updates… Things that are kind of dynamic and needs to be regularly updated.







  • Maybe i misunderstand what you mean but yes, you kind of can. The problem in this case is that the user sends two requests in the same input, and the LLM isn’t able to deal with conflicting commands in the system prompt and the input.

    The post you replied to kind of seems to imply that the LLM can leak info to other users, but that is not really a thing. As I understand when you call the LLM it’s given your input and a lot of context that can be a hidden system prompt, perhaps your chat history, and other data that might be relevant for the service. If everything is properly implemented any information you give it will only stay in your context. Assuming that someone doesn’t do anything stupid like sharing context data between users.

    What you need to watch out for though, especially with free online AI services is that they may use anything you input to train and evolve the process. This is a separate process but if you give personal to an AI assistant it might end up in the training dataset and parts of it end up in the next version of the model. This shouldn’t be an issue if you have a paid subscription or an Enterprise contract that would likely state that no input data can be used for training.


  • For now, BMW is defaulting to a more traditional approach. If it requires a data package of some sort, it will probably have a recurring fee—and BMW says its customers are already comfortable subscribing to such add-ons.

    Sounds like a fairly reasonable position imo, and that they listen to the outrage about heated seats (which tbh was ridiculous). I get the feeling that everyone who commented on this didn’t actually read the article, lol.

    Full disclosure: I own a fairly recent BMW and do like it a lot. Would I have bought it with subscription based heated seats? Maybe not, but I do appreciate other things like having a physical button to go into battery save mode and not having to dive 3 touch screen menus down… or that it’s one of the most powerful hybrids in electric only mode (though not anymore I think)… or being generally more dialed back when it comes to driver assist features.

    That said I will admit that it has a physical button that tells me to pay up when pressed, to enable automatic high beam control… though it’s not like it was an advertised feature (got it used).