It proves LLMs always need context. They have no idea where your car is. Is it already there at the car wash and you simply get back from the gas station to wash it where you went shortly to pay for the car wash? Or is the car at your home?

It proves LLMs are not brains, they don't think. This question will be used to train them and "magically" they'll get it right next time, creating an illusion of "thinking".

> They have no idea where your car is.

They could either just ask before answering or state their assumption before answering.

Well, he posed a wrong question (incomplete, without context of where the car is) and got a wrong answer. LLM is a tool, not a brain. Context means everything.

This is what "AI" advertised to solve. It is a perfectly fine question.

true it's human nature to assume context fill gaps in their own imagination. LLM is working as intended

Who defines "ethics"?

People and societies.

Your question is an important one, but also one that has been extensively researched, documented and improved upon. Whole fields of science, like "Metaethics" deal with answering your question. Other fields of science with defining "normative ethics" aka ethics that "everyone agrees upon" and so on.

I may have misread your question as a somewhat dismissive sarcastic take or as a "Ethics are nonsense, because of who defines them". So I tried to answer it as an honest question. ;)

Not quite. You are describing "kinds of ethics" after ethics is an already established concept. I.e. actual examples of human ethics. Now the question is who defines ethics as concept in general. Humans can have ethics, but is it applicable to the computer programs at all? Sure, programs can have programmed limitations, but is that called ethics at all? Does my Outlook client has ethics, only because it has configured rules? What is the difference between my email client automatically responding to an email with "salesforce" mentioned and an LLM program automatically responding to a query with the word "plutonium"?

Alternative: run your own self-hosted messaging server for you, your family and friends. No company should ever get such sensitive data as private conversations.

Use Discord with a throw-away account. Create a character in GTA 5 on your laptop and show its face (in "selfie" mode) to the web-camera on another computer with Discord open. All face scan checks so far gladly accept it. Instagram has been requiring occasional face checks for ages already.

Finally. The previous hate GOG showed towards Linux was absolutely ridiculous.

What is the story behind that? I would have thought GOG would be neutral at worst about Linux as a platform considering their anti-DRM pitch.

The walled garden seems to be falling apart, with users trapped inside. Maybe the idea of a walled garden isn't so great after all.

VeraCrypt.

It's not about securing your device from external threats or bad actors; it's about securing the device from you.

I see it a little differently. I would change your statement to the following:

It's not about securing your device from external threats or bad actors; it's about securing the organization from any blame / wrongdoing.

Most organizations today are looking high and low to shove the blame to others instead of taking responsibility.

It's related, but GP is still right to bring it up - it's the one question that is most important wrt. security, and also conveniently the least often asked: security for who, and from what? "Security" isn't an absolute good.

Play Integrity certifies (and banks/etc approve) that Android 8.0 (oreo) unpatched for several years, full of vulnerabilities for RCE, 0-click, privilege escalation, etc, so full of holes it's trivial to get a root and then hide it (or use leaked cert), is absolutely a-ok, safe to use and secure for user.

Yes?

Is this what you're suggesting? :)

Because this is what's certified and embraced.