ipython

So the DoW should have the ability to perform mass surveillance on American citizens?

Mind you, that is not the DoW’s charter. How would a restriction on that be “unfit” as you say?

The DoW is perfectly within their rights not to purchase anthropic products. That’s different than labeling them a supply chain risk.

the default is weak because it's the most user-friendly option. Otherwise, you end up with edge cases where the user lost their only device, or they forgot their password, or ... the list goes on and on, and they lose all their previous chat data.

That's a very user-unfriendly place to be. Most users won't understand why their data is gone, become unhappy, and distrust their devices to safely store their data. It's not even about buying more Apple products at that point - it's just literally reinforcing the stigma that "I can't understand tech, it's too complex".

You can't be security-maxxing and user-experience-maxxing at the same time. I do like Apple's approach which at least gives you the option.

I would argue the democrats are more a process oriented party. They wouldn’t pull this shit because they care about process - so much so that they wouldn’t even consider half the stuff that’s going on now as it circumvents process.

In that case, would the people caught unemployed and with upside down loans in the 2008 financial crisis would have a reasonable argument for "force majeure" to cancel their mortgages? ... After all, they had a reasonable expectation that the economy would continue to support their employment, either with their current employer or by finding a new job that paid just as well?

at some point the phrases loses its meaning if it becomes applicable to pretty much anything.

doesn't the reasoning trace provide "intent"?

aaronsw was just a few decades ahead of his time. He should have just been employed by OpenAI and asked a swarm of agents to "download all scientific papers". Because as we have found out agentic systems (and their owners) have zero accountability, unlike humans. Sounds like agents already have more rights than we do.

rip.

Well, it's kinda converging, because Napster and Microsoft have teamed up to build a multimodal interactive video agent through a simple proxy API (this is a direct quote from Napster's blog post)

https://www.napster.com/blog/napster-heads-to-microsoft-buil...

All I could think of while reading this was “has no one heard of ntptrace?”

Your comment sparked an idea - it’s like the bike shedding of written text. If you write clean, concise English, it’s easy to parse and then inject your thoughts. If you instead (like an llm) throw a human a large wall of jargon heavy text, they’ll just give up and agree with you.

I mean, I get your thought process and don't disagree. That said...

Would it be an affirmative defense if we had a defendant who said "but your honor, I was told that when I hacked this system, I was operating in a sandbox. I had no idea that I actually had Internet access!"

The frontier is spiky and all, but you have to suspend disbelief quite a bit to, on one hand, have a model that can produce a novel math theory, and on the other hand, that same model can't tell the difference between a "sandbox" and the open Internet.

So, yes, the misalignment had a lot to do with "instructions unclear", but also a lot to do with the fact that the models themselves were not aligned to validate the assumptions and have a healthly level of skepticism, as a real human actor would.

As opposed to the frontier model company that, after discovering that their highly persistent model under test just breached the only thing between it and the open Internet, shrugged and said- let's restart it and keep going!

If anyone looks like the adult in the room after that incident, it's Hugging Face.

Agreed. And they have been poking fun at the right for decades. Heck they made a whole movie about how ridiculous the global war on terror was, back in 2004.

It will be difficult to do so in the current administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_allegations_during_...

Let me fix that for you.

Lots of maga are idealists (even if their ideas are not based in the real world), a number of them are LARPers and a small number are hard core intent on eliminating “the enemy”. To think that no maga member is violent and entertains violent options, is denying reality. Also it’s disingenuous to think they are all out of their minds looking to overthrow the government. Many just have ideals that don’t align with the mainstream.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1153982516232...

https://www.gettyimages.com/videos/jan-6

Both. (See for example @dhsgov)

Unfortunately those politicians are the ones who directly affect lives of all of us through their words and actions.

Your defeatist attitude is one of the reasons we are in this mess in the first place. Why should you or anyone else accept this as a status quo?

The trouble is that many us government figures exclusively post information via x (and to some extent Facebook as well)

Agreed. Which is why I’m in favor of recording all conversations within earshot of any public location. Those can be tagged for keywords related to child endangerment. After all, who would argue against protecting kids?

In fact, we should take the pictures from public school districts and feed them into this system. Facial recognition immediately available on any kid that happens to walk on any public street. Why would anyone want to opt out of such a system?

(/s if it isn’t obvious)

If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse.

Don’t know why you’re downvoted but this venture funding is exactly what makes the scale and centralization of surveillance possible. You can’t build this sort of system out without the debt financing provided by the vc industry.

For example - I don’t have links to substantiate this yet - but I’d bet the same playbook that’s always used was used here as well. Flock cameras were provided to cash strapped police departments at a very low cost - unsustainably low for any other non vc funded company to compete with - in order to juice growth and build the scale/network effect to make the system valuable.

Flock also has the advantage of scale and centralization where previous solutions had neither

I mean, you've already had 10 months to come up with some name ideas. It's not like it's a huge surprise when it happens. You could even register the names before they're born.

From the Verisign application [0] for this change:

    > 2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names?
    > None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names.

ehhh, how is that possibly true? This change (deleting all third level names) by definition affects the lifecycle of domain names ... by terminating them!

Many years ago I wrote articles bringing attention to the negative effects of Verisign's SiteFinder [1] - if you don't remember this, it's when Verisign hijacked NXDOMAIN by redirecting any unresolvable domain to a site they owned and controlled.

[0] https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policies/rsep-2... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_Finder

Why have stable names at all then? What’s your point?

Weird, one could say that about the person who insisted on this useless change in the first place...

But Anthropic themselves are the ones who made the equivalence of "0.00% prompt injection attack success rate == auto-mode is safe"

The tweet literally says: "turns out you can get indirect prompt injection to ~0 on unseen attacks... auto mode is default in claude code as of next week"

Making the assertion, quite clearly in my opinion, that the reason auto mode is default is because he feels the lack of successful prompt injection attacks makes auto mode safe. This blog post proves that you can break auto mode's safety, even if it's not technically through a textbook indirect prompt injection attack.

Does a torrent count?

If buying one copy of a book entitles the ai company to train on that data and redistribute information derived from it in perpetuity, then why shouldn’t a rival ai company be allowed to train on tokens from say OpenAI and redistribute information derived from the OpenAI model also in perpetuity? The rival ai company paid for the tokens, after all.

Elon Musk, for one. Maybe not the same program but came as a j1 student visa then promptly left to work on startups.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/us/elon-musk-immigration-wash...

We wouldn’t want someone to work in the US under the guise of a student visa, after all. It’s not like the current richest man in the world didn’t start his journey that way.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/us/elon-musk-immigration-wash...

At what point did the authors whose books showed up in the ai companies training data sets “give it all away” as you claim?

What was the intent of the original ai companies (anthropic, OpenAI, etc) when they mass-distilled the entire internet to create their training data set?