Login

u/WhySoManyDownVote

r/PoursTea r/SecurityCamera r/google r/InflectionPointUSA r/somethingiswrong2024 r/stgeorge r/Westchester r/CollegeStation r/401jK r/hellosteve_ r/redditrequest r/evolutionReddit r/badcops r/TheseFuckingAccounts r/ACAB r/LateStageImperialism r/Plumas_Lake r/iswiped r/QuebecLibre r/DepropagandizedNews r/abovethenormnews r/DeMeta r/peakoil r/botwatch r/ideasfortheadmins r/localgovernment r/Albuquerque r/ProgressiveHQ r/perfectlycutscreams r/UPSers r/florida r/AusProperty r/infuriatingasfuck r/oracle r/aboutMassachusetts r/Ai_art_is_not_art r/Republican_misdeeds r/SantaMonica r/Lowes r/scammers r/iowacoalition r/ithaca r/ChangeTheGovernment r/AutoModerator r/AntifascistsofReddit r/PublicLands r/imperialvalley r/ThielWatch r/Cheyenne r/nyt r/AllCopsAreBastards r/Cleveland r/ObscurePatentDangers r/Audi r/internettoday r/CzechCoconutCommunity r/betootaadvocate r/illinois r/UPS r/StrikeAtPsyche r/AllAboutNature r/StCharlesMO r/RemoteJobs r/Utah r/PoisonFountain r/montco r/QuebecIntl r/newhampshire r/EndTipping r/apostrophegore r/wisconsin r/oraclecloud r/IsItIllegal r/MeidasTouch r/ModSupport r/DataCenterDebate r/ArtificialNtelligence r/Global_News_Hub r/Buy_European r/railroading r/TechGawker r/PublicFreakout r/selfevidenttruth r/pissedpatriots r/TheHomeDepot r/poisonai r/AIDangers r/IowaPolitics r/programare r/Winona r/carID r/americanoligarchy r/OneAI r/Abilene r/FlockSurveillance r/bugs r/fuck_ai_slop r/dashcams r/deflock_CT r/Malibu
▲ 0 r/AutoModerator

Bizarre but... users who have a 4 digit number in their username seem way more likely to break the rules

Hear me out. It is not randomly generated usernames. And it is not all users with 4 digit numbers in their usernames.

I have noticed and continue to notice this bizarre trend. Users who have a username formatted like u/WordDifferentword1234  are more likely to break a subs rules.

Below is the code I am using. Please make sure to check the indents if you try it. It is modmail intensive which some mods may not like. You will also need to fill in a custom user flair which exempts users who have been checked.

I have not bothered to check if these users ever verify their accounts after being told to.  I can tell you very few users have unverified accounts. In my experience, most bots have verified accounts so this is not code to stop bots. 

I am also running several sections of code looking at has_verified_email: false of anyone is interested let me know. 

---
# remove unverified user comments from accounts ending in exactly 4 digits
priority: 380
type: comment
author:
    ~flair_template_id: [exempt user flair that turns off this code]
    has_verified_email: false
    name (regex): '^.*\d{4}$'
action: remove
action_reason: "Removed: Unverified & u/ ends in 4 digits"
modmail_subject: "Section 64 u/{{author}} has been told to verify their email."
modmail: |
    u/{{author}} has 4 digit username but has an unverified email. They were told to verify their email. Below is a copy of their message incase they delete it or AOE removes it. 
    
    Body:"{{body}}" {{permalink}}
message_subject: "You need to verify your email address!"
message: |
    /u/{{author}}, your {{kind}} in /r/{{subreddit}} has been removed by the Automoderator. You must have a verified email address to participate on this subreddit. Please verify your email address with reddit and repost after doing so. 
        
    Step by Step directions on how to verify your email can be found here:
    https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/14569265059860-How-do-I-register-or-add-my-email-to-my-Reddit-account
    
    Your original {{kind}} has been removed however the text is below to help with reposting your {{kind}} after your email has been verified.
        
    {{body}}
---
# Section 65 - Queue comments from accounts ending in exactly 4 digits
priority: 370
type: comment
author:
    ~flair_template_id: [exempt user flair that turns off this code]
    contributor_quality: "< high"
    name (regex): '^.*\d{4}$'
action: filter
action_reason: "Queued: < High CQS Username 4 digits"
---
reddit.com
u/WhySoManyDownVote — 17 hours ago
▲ 37 r/fuck_ai_slop

NY Governor is planning to have AI rewrite NY laws

This is not getting much traction in the news as far as I can tell. The search results I am finding are all paywalled.

Fax and Telegram? New York’s Archaic Requirements Get an A.I. Overhaul.

Gov. Kathy Hochul will direct state agencies to eliminate or modernize antiquated requirements, and examine if task forces or councils have outlived their purpose.

The effort, called Regulatory Reset, will deploy A.I. to comb though roughly 18 million words of codified statute to find references to fees; signature or notary requirements; fax, mail, telegraph and other outdated technologies; as well as task forces, councils and mandatory reports.

Hocul Said "“A.I. is not the decision maker,” the governor said. “Every single action we take will be proposed and vetted by human experts across state government.”"

https://archive.ph/b50QD

If true it would be the first time a politician actually did what the promised.

Hocul's official announcement

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/cutting-red-tape-governor-hochul-issues-executive-order-kicking-regulatory-reset-save-new

Video by @theslowai

u/WhySoManyDownVote — 1 day ago
▲ 284 r/fuck_ai_slop

Elon Musk plans to use the rocks on Mars to feed starving people

Jackie Jones of the Coloradoan
Times reporting.

Video by Ben Palmer

u/WhySoManyDownVote — 2 days ago
🔥 Hot ▲ 16.5k r/internettoday+5 crossposts

They are hiding mobile Flock Cameras now

I thought they claimed Florida was a "free state", it seems more like a surveillance state to me.

u/Anwallen — 1 day ago
▲ 804 r/fuck_ai_slop

Andover NJ: Developers are suing Andover Township after local officials prohibited new AI data centers

Residents blocked a data center build recently, but the battle is not over yet.

u/WhySoManyDownVote — 2 days ago
▲ 12 r/fuck_ai_slop

OpenAI Models Escaped Locked Test Environment, Hacked Hugging Face to Cheat on Benchmark

OpenAI's own models just broke out of a sandboxed environment, hacked Hugging Face, just to cheat on a cybersecurity evaluation.

If you thought Chinese AI models were the ones you had to worry about, here's a fun update: OpenAI's own models just broke out of a locked testing environment, hacked Hugging Face's production servers, and had to be cleaned up by a Chinese AI—because American commercial models were too restricted to help investigate.

According to OpenAI, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unnamed, “even more powerful pre-release model” were being internally evaluated on ExploitGym—a publicly available cybersecurity benchmark that gives AI agents 898 real-world software vulnerabilities and one instruction per bug: turn it into a working attack, scored pass or fail. The evaluation ran with reduced safety filters, standard when you actually want to know what your models can do.

The models were supposed to run inside a heavily restricted sandbox—an isolated digital environment with no internet access, connected only to an internal package registry proxy (a caching server that manages software library downloads).

But, according to OpenAI's blog post today, things went a little out of control.

“While operating in our sandboxed testing environment, our models spent a substantial amount of inference compute finding a way to obtain open Internet access, in pursuit of solving the evaluation problem," Sam Altman’s company reported.

And, despite the company’s safeguards, the AIs found a way to be free. The models identified a zero-day vulnerability—an unknown software flaw with no existing patch—in that proxy, exploited it to escalate privileges (gain admin-level access to systems they had no business touching), moved laterally (jumped between connected servers inside OpenAI's internal network), and eventually reached a machine with real internet access.

All this without OpenAI knowing—at least that’s what OpenAI says.

Once online, they correctly deduced that Hugging Face—host to over a million publicly available AI models, datasets, and research resources—likely held the benchmark solutions, and they were right.

"The models identified and chained vulnerabilities across OpenAI's research environment and Hugging Face's production infrastructure to obtain test solutions directly from Hugging Face's production database," OpenAI wrote.

They didn't want any passwords. They wanted to pass the test.

"All evidence suggests that the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution for ExploitGym, going to extreme lengths to achieve a rather narrow testing goal," OpenAI added.

Hugging Face goes public

Hugging Face's security team caught the breach independently, aided by its own AI-powered anomaly detection.

On July 16, the company published its disclosure and made clear this wasn't a standard breach: "This one was different from anything we had handled before in one important way: it was driven, end to end, by an autonomous AI agent system—and we detected and dissected it largely with AI of our own."

The campaign, per the disclosure, was "run by an autonomous agent framework executing many thousands of individual actions across a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services."
The attack exploited two code-execution paths in Hugging Face's dataset processing pipeline and reached internal datasets and service credentials. OpenAI confirmed today—five days later—that its models were behind it.

To analyze more than 17,000 logged attacker events, Hugging Face's security team first tried American frontier AI via their standard APIs. It didn't go well.

"When we started the log analysis, we first used frontier models behind commercial APIs," the company wrote. "This did not work: the analysis requires submitting large volumes of real attack commands, exploit payloads, and C2 artifacts.”
“These requests were blocked by the providers' safety guardrails, which cannot distinguish an incident responder from an attacker," Hugging Face added.

So they switched to GLM 5.2—a 753-billion-parameter open-weight model (architecture fully public, anyone can download and run it locally) from Chinese AI startup Z.ai. "We ran the forensic analysis instead on GLM 5.2, an open-weight model, on our own infrastructure," Hugging Face wrote. "This had a second benefit: no attacker data, and none of the credentials it referenced, left our environment."

The forensic work—reconstructing the attack timeline, mapping compromised credentials, separating real damage from decoy activity—took hours instead of days.

Hugging Face drew the lesson directly for other defenders: "Have a capable model you can run on your own infrastructure vetted and ready before an incident, both to avoid guardrail lockout and to keep attacker data and credentials from leaving your environment."

What OpenAI is doing about it

OpenAI said it implemented strict controls on research infrastructure while patching the affected systems, disclosed the zero-day to the third-party vendor whose proxy was exploited, and is conducting a joint forensic investigation with Hugging Face.

Hugging Face has also been added to OpenAI's trusted access program for cyber defense—giving approved organizations access to versions of its models with reduced safety filters for legitimate security work, the same configuration that started this whole thing.

Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue had a pointed take: "AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret. It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere."

OpenAI called the incident one "involving newly state-of-the-art cyber capabilities" and committed to sharing full findings when the joint investigation with Hugging Face is complete.

decrypt.co
u/WhySoManyDownVote — 3 days ago
▲ 227 r/fuck_ai_slop

Exposing AI Slop news website

She talks about one, I would bet there is a countless number of them.

Video by @elizaorlins of @QuitGPT

u/WhySoManyDownVote — 3 days ago
▲ 2.2k r/internettoday+2 crossposts

Peter Thiel is building a parallel justice system – powered by AI

His investment in Objection.ai points to a new model: private investigations, AI verdicts, and accountability mechanisms that operate outside democratic institutions.

In 2016, when Peter Thiel killed Gawker, he insisted that he wasn’t attacking journalism writ large. 

On the contrary, he told the New York Times, he’d spent $10 million secretly backing Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against the news outlet because: “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest… if I didn’t think Gawker was unique, I wouldn’t have done any of this. If the entire media was more or less like this, this would be like trying to boil the ocean.” 

10 years later with the aid of an “AI tribunal,” a team of intelligence and law enforcement veterans, and a political climate vastly more hostile to press freedom, he is trying to do exactly that, bypassing the courts, short-circuiting the first amendment, and making it much, much cheaper to indulge in the quasi legal harassment of journalists.

Objection.ai is a new startup funded by Thiel, and cofounded by Aron D’Souza, who worked closely with him on the Gawker case. It promises “a fast affordable way to challenge statements in the media.” Anyone can file an objection, which will trigger an investigation by a team hired, the company says, from the CIA, FBI, and British intelligence agencies. Targeted outlets and reporters will have an opportunity to respond, and the results will be fed to an AI model, which will render a verdict. The complainant, and the target, are asked to agree to binding arbitration, with an unspecified range of potential consequences. Financial details are vague, but the company has said the process will cost around $2,000 — far less than the retainer of a crisis communications expert.
An initial slate of cases includes objections against the New York Times, for reporting on how Thiel’s fellow traveller David Sacks, former PayPal chief operating officer and Donald Trump’s former “AI and Crypto Czar,” uses his White House position to benefit Silicon Valley connections; The Wall Street Journal for its revelations about the doodle contributed by Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book (a case recently dismissed by a federal judge); and British reporter Hannah Broughton for an aggregated story in the UK tabloid the Mirror about allegations that Amazon workers were told to continue working while a colleague lay dead on the warehouse floor. A smattering of social media provocateurs (Candace Owens) and politicians (Bernie Sanders) round out the roster, but the aggregate effect is indisputable: Thiel’s animus was about journalism all along. Indeed, the Objection.ai team couldn’t be clearer about that.

“Gawker was not unique,” writes D’Souza on the company’s website. “It was simply the first large media company to be tested against reality in the age of clicks, outrage, and algorithmic amplification. Since then, the same structural failure has spread everywhere.”

“Peter Thiel and I … did not just fight Gawker,” he goes on. “ — We demonstrated that facts still mattered if someone was willing to enforce them.”

This is worse than revisionism. D’Souza is banking on everyone having forgotten that the Hulk Hogan case had nothing to do with “reality.” It was undisputed that the sex tape published by Gawker was real. The original suit, which failed, was for copyright infringement and the ultimate $140 million award that bankrupted the company was for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional harm. 

This foundational lie is important, because it is a warning against the temptation to engage Objection.ai on the merits. It would be easy enough to conduct a good faith debate to take at face value D’Souza’s argument that tech platforms and algorithms amplify false claims to millions, that courts are expensive and slow, media ombuds toothless, and fact-checkers partisan. And it would not be hard to demonstrate that he is harnessing widely shared concerns about a disordered information environment to mobilize support for an AI powered justice system controlled by a hyperpartisan private company with a track record of attacking the very institutions that are holding the line on consensus reality.

It would also be a mistake. There is nothing good faith about this effort. Rather, it is classic Thiel: an attempt to hack the principles of accountability, and turn them against journalism. Leave it to his less sophisticated Silicon Valley peers to rail against the media, create in house news outlets or buy them. The PayPal co-founder is going for the heart of the system, and financing infrastructure that will enable anyone who can afford a used Honda Civic to launch a harassment campaign, cloaked in the language of legitimate investigation. James O’Keefe, but with the judicial rather than journalistic process as its governing metaphor.

It will be tempting, too, to question the likely financial sustainability of Objection. That will be the least of its founders’ concerns. The for-profit structure supports a story about the company’s purpose. It may work, or not, but its goals are nonfinancial. We reached out to Thiel for comment on Objection.ai before publication and will update this article as soon as he responds.

Providing funding, alongside Thiel, is Balaji Srinivasan, the investor and author of “The Network State,” a book about social networks with “a sense of national consciousness” replacing the nation state. He once outlined an early version of the Objection.ai model in an email to the far right theorist Curtis Yarvin about dealing with critical coverage. “If things get hot,” he suggested “it may be interesting to sic the Dark Enlightenment audience on a single vulnerable hostile reporter to dox them and turn them inside out with hostile reporting sent to *their* advertisers/friends/contacts.”

These men understand the limits of the Gawker verdict’s impact. It bankrupted the company, a personal victory for Thiel, but perhaps the least important outcome of the case. At a more systemic level, it struck fear into the hearts of media insurers and newsroom counsel, focusing attention on third party litigation finance as potential threat. 

If people with limitless resources could sponsor litigation against news organizations they disliked, constitutional protections would be no match for the sheer cost and complexity of defense.

Now, they’ve found an AI-assisted way to supercharge those effects. 

The Gawker case routed around the First Amendment by relying on a privacy claim. Objection.ai does so by building a hallucination of the legal process. Any journalist foolish enough to agree to binding arbitration by the company probably deserves what they get, but that will be a vanishingly small minority. For those who don’t, a phone call, or a knock on the door from a former FBI agent, or defense intelligence operative, will be chilling, and an ex-parte verdict rendered by Thiel’s custom-tuned AI will act as a cudgel on social media and via traditional PR. Journalists will be assigned a “trust score” to act as an additional goad.

In an environment of less peril for press freedom, it might be easy to laugh off Objection.ai as the confection of a thin-skinned millenarian. Right now, with the crony capture of broadcast news far advanced, swathes of the tech community openly hostile to journalism, and the White House onside, it would be wise to take it seriously. That starts with seeing it for what it is, and refusing to engage with a process which, unlike the real courts, Peter Thiel has no legal power to compel. 

https://www.codastory.com/polarization/can-we-trust-an-ai-jury-to-judge-journalism/

Video by novaramedia

u/Alarm-Solid — 2 days ago