flumpcakes

Any evidence what so ever for the "mass control" claim?

I do not want E2E comms broken, but these posts on hackernews always bring out such outlandish claims.

You can't be applying the "mass control" claim for the attempts at stopping the spread of CSAM? So can you point to any evidence of wide spread "mass control" with Chat Control 1.0?

This is extending something that came into affect in 2011.

It already exists. Most CSAM tools are checking against a hash database.

Why would you NOT want this to exist? This seems the only method to not raise false positives.

> Blackboxes which scan your messages and photos for anything 3rd party want with undisclosed criteria.

Well the criteria is CSAM?

Do you have any evidence that these systems have been used to imprison someone that wasn't CSAM related?

This is extending an existing law that expired.

Really you should have felt betrayed back in 2011.

This isn't Chat Control 2.0 - which is the thing that has been getting attention for the last few years.

E2E encryption should not be broken, we should find other ways to catch and find predators.

Scanning messages in platforms (Chat Control 1.0)? I honestly thought this has always been done, I don't consider any platform private.

A lot of Internet regulations are just catching up to ones that exist in meat space.

I think what scares people when the regulations come to the Internet is that they are highly automated, and I think there's potential for mass injustices when automated systems.

At the same time, the abuse of children has also been automated and amplified by the Internet. https://youtu.be/QYcAFanHwf8?t=1666

I assume those 400-page EULAs blast away any 'strict restrictions'.

The most obvious answer: to stop CSAM being shared on large platforms. Cloudflare has a tool that does it for some of their services.

Why is it currently illegal? If I have a service that let's users communicate, why is it illegal to look through those communications? (especially after they've signed my 400 page EULA). It would make moderation impossible otherwise.

Or are we saying this is being used for something specific that happens to be illegal?

> Then forced through through some obscure mechanism bypassing

It was extending a recently expired law that has existed since 2011.

I don't think your comment is reflecting on what has actually happened. "Chat Control" as people know it has not passed into law.

> Why do EU citizens tolerate this?

Some EU citizens want it? You'd be surprised on the views of some people.

Perhaps the article is biased.

The simple fact is that a law that existed since 2011 and expired in April is now back in effect. So we are back where we were on February.

I don't remember moving from an anti-democratic hell scape to serene democratic beauty back in April so it's probably a nothing-burger.

I often see news articles that trade on the fact the general populace aren't professional bureaucrats and so frame anything happening in unpopular ways.

Who is they?

These pithy remarks don't really extend the debate or have any nuance - they just sound conspiratorial.

There are plenty of reasons to "scan" communications.

There are plenty of reasons to have limits on communication "scanning".

What part of the spectrum do you fall on?

Isn't this something they already do?

I would be utterly shocked if facebook et al. were not scanning all of your messages (either in transit or at terminus to get around 'E2E' claims).

An author has lived experiences, including other books they have read, to draw upon to tell a narrative they want to tell (either purely for expression, purely for profit, or more often than not somewhere between).

A machine that chews up the worlds literature and spins out a best guess at what the next word should be does not have intent, and the vast majority of the time is used by unscrupulous people purely for profit and/or deception.

An LLM and a living human being are not the same thing, I am tired of apologists comparing them as if they are.

It's not surprising that a computer (doing trillions of calculations on a billion parameter model that was trained on the world's literature) can string a coherent sentence together...

I think it's worse than that - the AI slop low effort cash cow is using deception (as well as theft). For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUSY6mtqQDI

I think people are missing the point.

The point is not that AI produces slop (it does).

The point is that I don't want to consume "art" that has been generated out the distillation of stealing all of the world's current art. That's not original, it's a facsimile of art.

I want to read something that has intent. That has a purpose. A reason why it exists. Not just the lowest effort cash grab.

This usage of AI is the equivalent of manufacturing companies making the flimsiest, cheapest, plastic crap to save 1/3 of a cent on every mop they produce. Designed to work for the least amount of time before needing replaced.

This planet has enough people on it that I will never, ever be able to read all the books written.

Please don't exponentially pump the number up by 1,000x every year from AI generated garbage.

> Promoting ethnic cleansing

Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere.

I'm a bit older than you, I can remember the late 90s and the early 2000s as a child: the future was so exciting.

I now feel the same as you (despite being a bit older), the future looks depressing as hell. It seems to me that things are just progressively getting noticeably worse in the last 10 years or so.

Odin has SDL built into the language (shipped as a vendored library).

Is LuaJIT still based on Lua5.1? I wonder why they haven't followed the language spec up to Lua5.5.

I think the EU should do it regardless of Russia. The EU should invest in its own technology and not depend so much on an increasingly undependable ally.

iPhones have pretty good privacy controls. I don’t see how they can’t extend those to cover AI apps. I imagine the settings menu will get bonkers though. User education about apps slurping up all your data is needed regardless. People just trust apple with their talk of private cloud computing.

Don’t install the app then. Consumer protection at some level means the consumer needs to be informed. I’d rather have a choice than just chow down on whatever the gatekeepers call food.

EU has some of the best consumer protection and privacy laws on the planet.

Then again you're not trying to enter it (potentially) illegally to (maybe) distrust day-to-say service and be a general annoyance (protest)? It's hard to leave the super market quickly when there's a long queue, but if you're shoplifting then you're out in a flash.

I find that the first paragraph tells a better narrative. I prefer it muchly. The second paragraph doesn't make sense and is saying more than the first. It feels both dumbed down and more confusing.

> I assume you mean "publicly state that I support Palestine Action"

They are currently a proscribed group, so yes, that is included in the list of things you probably shouldn't do. You're not going to get killed for it though. You're probably not even going to get arrested in most cases.

Whether or not they should be proscribed is a different issue. The best course of action is probably to wait for the courts to decide. Pressure groups damaging military assets probably aren't going to be well received by the public regardless of which cause they're for.

> In the UK I'd be worried about being arbitrarily arrested, deported, and banned from re-entry.

That's not going to happen unless you commit a serious crime, in which case it's not arbitrary. I can't think of a single case that's made the news.

Meanwhile across the pond in America you have the nightly news reporting on children and people in cages screaming. People being rounded up for not being white. Little to no due process at all until you've been through 6 rounds of hell.

WSL2 is honestly the only thing keeping me sane having to work with a Windows 11 desktop environment at work.

The new container capability also looks magical, and being able to access that directly from windows apps seems pretty cool too. Not sure it would be worth the time investment vs. docker desktop, but interesting none the less.

Surely all experts are employed in some form in their field? Should we have their entire CV read out before their expertise is given on a subject matter?

Unless there is a clear conflict of interest, such as an "expert" urging a particular course of action which aligns to benefit their employers, then the audience should probably just engage their critical thinking a bit more.

The majority of UK experts will probably have opinions that align with UK ethics/morality/society and urge options that benefit the UK state and it's allies. I would assume that would be an absolute given too.

When I watch Chinese citizens give their expertise on matters, I know that it will probably align with the Chinese state and benefit them (as opposed to strictly the UK state). Have people lost all of their critical thinking skills?