jfyi

No, I am 100% serious. There is no reason to fuck around. Anything is better than the dystopian hellscape we are headed for currently. The time for discussion is past. The time for action is now. If corporations don't want this to happen, they need to get off their ass and start fixing what they broke before the people have to.

Also, you'd do better if you assumed good faith.

Clearly because everyone will not be able to pay for it to the same extent. Though, if you have a 1200 agent swarm to throw at a hf sized problem, I'd be excited to see your writeup.

Exactly. Eroding trust is such a successful strategy because it weaponizes confirmation bias. Once people are primed to be skeptical, they often come to conclusions irrationally first, and then (knowingly or not) seek only to prove themselves right.

I, for one, am excited that we are now finally able to be "Secure™".

Wait, I guess I missed the "more", that kind of puts a damper on the whole thing.

Seriously though, security will continue to be an issue, always. Even if it was perfect, the benefits of it will not be applied uniformly. There will also be the same technology being improperly used causing new exploitables to go live.

I agree, it's hard to let someone get all hand wavy about hypothetical corruption right now. That ship has sailed and is sinking as we speak.

Good, then we are in agreement that it's already on the table. No reason to avoid making some adjustments rapid iteration style.

See, the problem with your analogy is, the way I see it, you are the one ignoring the hive in the trunk.

We clearly disagree, but that's ok.

> "It's not a frying pan, it's a revolution" sounds like AI.

This is either hyperbole or it hasn't been re-checked since around 2022.

> that something gains a lot of power over the institution.

Yeah, that hypothetical is terrifying! It's not like our entire government is in the pocket of the largest of these corporations anyway! That would be an entirely new scenario that we should avoid at all costs!

I was thinking we just move fast and break things. A little disruption never hurt anybody. I'm sure we can have all the kinks worked out in 2 years.

We the people who the government represents as a whole, and it can take many forms, yeah, but I am pretty partial to direct ownership of a percentage. The value we provide to these entities deserves it.

> gov ownership/control of corps

Corporations are literally government sponsored entities. Where do you think they get their limited liability and separate legal personhood from?

We should own a piece of every single one for that service we provide.

> the governments don’t like to do things that could potentially harm their investments. If a government has large stakes in cigarette companies, they’re going to be resistant to regulate them.

The ideal in a democracy would be that we behave as adults and make the decision where to draw the lines.

...and yeah, corruption is a problem, but it's going to find a way regardless of what we throw at it. We would be better off handling the existing corruption than worrying about some hypothetical future corruption as a reason we can't try new things.

People already talked like LLMs, how else would they have learned to talk like that?

"It isn't x, its y" was a common device before, AI has just highlighted it's use. Em dashes on the other hand are the devil's work.

I am not sure I understand the run around at all.

You were responding to this:

> the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz

Instead of morally biased analogies, why not just explain what you believe is the actual case?

You mentioned wanting to avoid moral insinuations and focus purely on the direct actors, but both of the analogies you used (police vs. robbers, bullied kid vs. bully) inherently rely on moral framing. They cast one side as a legitimate authority or innocent victim, and the other as the undisputed aggressor.

If the goal is truly to look at this without moral bias and just examine the causal chain of events, those analogies don't work. There is no geopolitical equivalent of your examples without bias. It's two competing states engaged in an escalating conflict. When you use analogies that bake in a "good guy/bad guy" dynamic, it introduces the exact moral framing you stated you were trying to avoid.

This is intuitive on an individual level, but price discovery works differently in these two scenarios.

Wages are "sticky" and negotiated directly between two parties. Oil is a globally traded commodity. Oil companies don't just decide to "put their prices up", though large players can influence it.

When a shock happens, buyers immediately bid up the price to secure limited future supply. Producers largely aren't involved in that pricing.

I will also add that, depending on the situation, your company having hard times very well might be the time to renegotiate your pay. It also though may be the right time to sit quietly and not draw attention to yourself.

I agree that security isn't bottlenecked by our ability to learn. We generally fail at the grit needed to do it day after day, especially when the benefits aren't immediately visible.

I appreciate the effort that went into the verbose version of the "I made this" meme for an hn audience.

Well, it makes them an AI researcher maybe but not a cryptographer anyway.

edit: I think that's going to be my go to on "you aren't an artist" from now on. "No! I'm an AI researcher!"

Their move from javafxports to graalvm left me dead in the water for android hardware support. Nobody was going to replace the hardware we were running on any time soon, so had to ditch them.

That was forever ago, maybe it improved.

> the report literally says the LLM did it on its own

Not mention it also says this...

> We are still analysing the GPT–6 Astra logs to see exactly how it executed the break.

We are getting the "intrusive nanny state" regardless of financial incentives of a given healthcare system. That ship has sailed. It's a goal, not a side effect.

Jason Wei's chain-of-thought prompting techniques literally revolutionized llms themselves.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

Johnny Long is the godfather of google dorking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo1BR9itwOY

https://blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-05/bh-us-05-long.p...

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

I don't think soft skills describes it in the traditional sense. The skillset largely needed with LLMs is more akin to being an editor or qa tester.

I suppose you could describe having the modesty to admit to yourself when you don't understand and research something deeper could be described as a soft skill, but I'd say it's a stretch. You are dealing with yourself in that scenario, not others.

I disagree, both of those are skills.

Neither are skills that a large portion of users of those services pursue to any meaningful extent, I'll grant you that. They also certainly are not synonymous with the term "soft skills" as I know it. So I think I am on your side of the fence on that part any way.

Why do you assume the cert would be tied to the camera?

Anyone that has seen someone take a strong dose of datura can attest that what you are saying is all correct. It is not a traditional psychedelic in any way, shape, or form.

It's wild seeing someone fully interact with a reality that isn't there and then come back not knowing anything about what happened. I had a friend in the early 2000's that had us video tape and babysit him. He had a half hour long conversation with his dead mother on a telephone that wasn't there. Also, he chain smoked non existent cigarettes for hours. He knew we were there and interacted with us, but he had no continuity.