john_strinlai

by nature of being in the "known exploited vulnerabilities catalog" (https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog...)

"CISA maintains the authoritative source of vulnerabilities that have been exploited in the wild."

>Huh? These are machines, built by their human builders. The humans are responsible.

i'm referring to the concept of intent, which at least when prosecuting under the US computer fraud and abuse act, is a critical component.

for example, creating a program that intentionally takes down a website is different than creating a program that has a bug which inadvertently takes down a website. in both cases, the person writing the code is responsible, but the consequences are different.

some say it will cure all diseases and lead to utopia. some, like you, say it will be "100% strictly negative".

i don't really understand either take. nothing else in the world is so perfectly black or white. there will be good, there will be bad.

i think i especially dislike the "100% strictly negative" take, considering the good things that ai has already done or accelerated.

its not incredulity. i'm unfamiliar with what law this would be prosecuted under, so i asked.

the HF incident is pretty clear in which laws were broken. this one, not so much.

i can't think of any case where, for example, malicious edits of wikipedia were prosecuted under any law in the US.

>Also when AI agents are set in motion to edit wikis

i do not believe there is evidence that the agents were instructed to edit the wikis.

which law does editing a wiki break? i am not familiar with german law.

i would not be surprised to find out that similar things are already happening by the various 3 and 4 letter agencies around the world

>To them, the consent is using the device/service/whatever.

exactly. the problem is the missing qualifying word.

when consumers say consent, it's almost always referring to informed consent.

when companies say consent, it's almost always referring to implied consent.

that's pretty hyperbolic. i would guess some very large percent (80%? 90%?) of gmail users have never once even thought about the feature.

it'll lose them some tech folk, but it's hardly "suicide".

>The point would be to not have websites be liable if things go wrong

im mostly on board with that.

>Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky

alcohol bans are way easier to enforce.

the internet is invisibly broadcast everywhere. most of my downtown & surrounding area has free wifi access. devices that can connect to the internet are also everywhere. phones, tablets, tvs, fridges, etc.

on the other hand, alcohol comes from licensed stores and requires a physical transaction to take place.

i am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge there are specific criteria for "stalking", one of which being that the stalking causes fear or distress.

the average person (i.e. a "reasonable person" by legal definition, even if us tech folk don't consider it reasonable) is not particularly scared or distressed by targeted ads. some people even like them.

a good lawyer might be able to make something out of it, but i'm not convinced that stalking laws are the right avenue.

maybe trickle-down privacy will be more successful than trickle-down economics. one can hope.

>Cool try explaining any of these terms to the average sysadmin.

if someone is managing a mail system and doesn't know what spf is, they should be immediately fired.

i am also not convinced this will remove or limit exposure to anything. the attack vector lives in the protocol, not the service used.

this might end up as a tiny, tiny blip in some small percentage of spammer/phisher operations.

if the mail from that address is being delivered to mailboxes, that's your universities fault.

if it's not (i.e. spf & dkim is failing), that's just how email works and is not unique to gmail.

>Right now you can forge email from any email address you can verify ownership.

how can you "forge" something if you verify ownership? when you own something, it's not "forging" to use it.

i think the point you're trying to get at is that the mail might fail dmarc requirements?

>I would never advise anyone to get mental health advice from a computer,

yes, sorry, to be abundantly clear i am not suggesting to replace a licensed therapist with ai.

i am suggesting to replace "life coach", "job coach", etc.

im not particularly concerned myself, but any ban like you propose would almost certainly go up to age 12 (at least), making it effectively impossible to enforce.

i see your other comment about guns, so just to preempt that a little bit: the internet is far more ubiquitously available than guns are.

over my long career, i have had the (dis)pleasure of working with many of these career/organization/employment consultant/coach types. if i can pass on a piece of advice for younger folk: avoid them. dont waste your money.

especially now, if you want coach-style advice, just put your thoughts/problems into chatgpt or whatever. that's probably all the coach is going to do anyway.

it's pretty easy to enforce that for 6 year olds. not as easy for 12 year olds.

correct, timeline is opt-in.

>Nobody is arguing the risk values are exactly the same.

please re-read the part i quoted from the parent, where they say it's the same risk.

>You're taking a pretty rigid stance that the only thing that matters is risk value

i did not say "the only thing that matters" anywhere.

you, and the parent, are reading something into my comments that i have not written. the only thing i said is that the risk is not the same because sony has a pattern of behavior worth considering.

>You have clearly never negotiated a contract.

feel free to make an actual point rather than vague assumptions about my history.

when you do risk assessments, which over my career i have done thousands, you include historical data.

>You should have just as much of an issue with Valve as you do Sony since you are signing up for the same legal risk.

it's not the same overall risk though.

accurate risk assessment includes past incidents in the calculation. sony has a demonstrated pattern, valve does not.

if you choose to ignore past behavior in your risk assessments, you are doing it wrong.

>You have drawn a boy, born in the Korean Peninsula in 3394 BCE

>Life expectancy at birth: 28 yrs

>Died before age 5: 42%

>Died before age 15: 50%

i knew life expectancy was obviously lower, but those stats were a bit eye opening.

unfortunately, died at 3 from an accident.

>makes me think you are just a troll, or worse.

not trolling, just found it to be an odd thing to add on. none of the other comments that i read at the time of my comment, except yours, brought up the age of the author.

i typically try to avoid using age as an insult. i find it rude. you don't, apparently.

(out of curiosity, what is the "worse" thing you think i am?)

>There’s only one way to interpret this.

obviously not.

>I think the author lost the plot.

they stretched an imperfect metaphor. i think that's forgivable. the piece, as a whole, is (as they say) a retelling of stoicism.

while it's not how i would have written it, i am struggling to understand many of the interpretations being posted in the comments. it's like people skipped over all the lines that say (or imply) "just do your own thing", and got immediately hung up by the use of "npc".

>Plus, it reads like a 15 year old's diary entry.

okay?

i am not sure why people are interpreting so extremely.

the gist of the post is "do something because you feel like doing it, not because you feel like you have to." and "the goal is to just do your own thing.".

it is not "never let anything affect you ever, then die".

that is not really what is meant by that advice

i dont think it's that deep.

it's the age old advice of "dont give a fuck" dressed up in some modern terminology ("npc")