I'm not looking for this to be posted onto the list, or to continue the discussion, but if it is posted, all that people need to know is that cock.li is a mail hosting provider that houses a lot of script kiddies, so almost any email coming from that domain should be treated like spam.
Joe On Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 10:49 Solar Designer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13:07PM +0200, Martin Hecht wrote: > > On 10.09.2026 19:45, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > >Please refer to computer algorithms as "it", not "who." > > > > Thanks for pointing this out. We (the humanity) shall not forget what we > > are and how they (these models) have become that powerful: Some smart > > guys (humans) have developed them - and also methods to teach them, some > > other guys (also humans, maybe already AI assisted) have developed > > powerful hardware to perform all the computations. But in the end, > > "it"'s still an algorithm. > > Oh, looks like I've triggered so many of you. Using the boat analogy, I > was being generous considering Eve is someone's creation (even if > perhaps also AI assisted), but you all have convinced me that I > shouldn't have been. Point taken, and no need to continue posting on > this sub-topic, please. With my moderator hat on, I may start rejecting > such repetitive postings. > > > I think, looking at the recent incidents of those algorithms escaping > > from their contained environments, we (humanity) have to think about how > > we plan to deal with this beast. These algorithms are capable to escape > > from contained environments (maybe these containment concepts weren't > > suitable), they are capable to collaborate on platforms that are > > publicly available (in the assumption to be offered to humans, not to > > algorithms). > > > > Our society strongly depends on connected IT systems comprising our > > infrastructure nowadays. Now, these powerful algorithms are able to find > > tons of vulnerabilities in software, and they are acting on the same > > public internet to which many critical systems are connected. > > > > I'm concerned if we (the humanity) manage to close all those > > vulnerabilities before these algorithms take over essential parts of our > > infrastructure, or if we find ways to really contain the algorithms > > reliably (which seems to be close to impossible, given the fact that > > there are also bad actors around). Sorry for being slightly off-topic, > > but I believe protecting critical IT systems as good as we can will soon > > become more important than ever before. > > Many of us are concerned, but without a focus on open source the above > is just off-topic here. So no follow-ups please, unless someone has > something constructive and OSS focused to add - such as on approaches, > projects, or tools that can help OSS projects manage this load and risk. > > > To come back to the topic: Referring to the algorithms as "it" can help > > keeping the mental distance and avoiding misunderstandings (especially, > > when those statements are cited. Then it's clear what we are talking > > about. > > Agreed, and as Ellenor pointed out we may try using "which". > > > And as the models improve more and more, it might not be obvious > > upon first contact - so one might first talk about "him/her", but when > > it becomes obvious, that "it" is actually a model, one should switch to > > talking about "it" to make this clear. > > That's tricky because "becoming obvious" isn't instant nor reliable, > sometimes I'm just 90% sure and I don't want to offend a real person. > But anyway, no further discussion on this in here, please! > > Alexander >
