sabas123

How are those arguments against kernel level detection from a security perspective? His arguments show that without kernel level, you either can't catch all bad actors as they can evade detection, or that the latency is too big that an attacker basically has free reign for some time after detection.

Security is a complex and deeply evolved field. Many modern required security practices are quite recent from a historical perspective because we simply didn't know we would need them.

A safe security first OS from 20 years ago would most likely be horribly insecure now.

And you think that any realistic alternative (which does require appropriate funding) does not have similar risks?

> To see this, here’s an exercise you can do yourself, if you have any training at all in advanced mathematics. Take a fairly generalist journal, like the Journal of Algebra (take a topic in which you have expertise — my doctoral thesis was in algebra). Look at some of the papers. How many of them are truly interesting to you?

> These days, I can look at any of these journals and find at most one or two papers that are even remotely amusing, and algebra was my specialty. On the other hand, I can take a journal in biology like the Journal of Animal Behavior and still find quite a few papers in each journal that are interesting to me even though I’m not even a research biologist! Keep in mind I still like mathematics a lot, and I still enjoy algebra.

Can't you also say this is directly disproving his point as well? It might be that there are so many open interesting problems that we can become highly picky what problems get solved to the point these preferences are shares between less people. Indicating an expansive set of problems instead of an exhausted one instead.

You know patents expire and their contents are released into the public domain after 25 years right? Seems like an short time to enslave humanity

> And the best way to verify a compiled binary is correctly compiled is to do the compilation. That's a trivial amount of work. Constructing a ZKP of the same is certainly more cost intensive.

This makes the assumption that you both have the source code and that the compiler is deterministic. With the latter one being not the case for (most?) modern compilers.

Again out of touch.

> the more you brag about having the money to retire, the more signals you send to the Fed and policy makers to keep cranking up the money supply treadmill to keep the pressure on working people.

I hope federal banks are smart enough to not base monetary policy of anecdotes

You can also write a formal spec based on a reference. But it will be harder then doing it up front most likely.

What do you mean when you say "how they work"?

A technique that is applied to widely different fields obviously yield a large set of interpretations each with the lense of their own field. But that doesn't invalidate any of those interpretations no?

Those heuristics are about "when" to apply certain transformations in a situation when two options are already proven equivalent. That is different from transforming correct code into possibly incorrect code.

> Before writing compilers, I think it's best to understand computer architectures, and what needs to be generated by the compiler to yield the most efficient machine code.

In my opinion one of the biggest industry advancements we have had is that compilers are now available without such level of low-level detail. There is still so much work to be done on a compiler level that really shouldn't concern themselves with the (micro)-architectural level of computers.

> What I'm not fine with is the secretive injection; these tools are too important to be used in such a way that the owners of the tools can secretly pre-adjust outcomes without disclosure.

If you want access to the underlying model you can use their API. The system prompt changes/bootstraps their underlying model into the "chat" of chatGPT. I don't see how this is problematic or morally wrong.

I ran your query on GPT3.5 and GPT4. GPT3.5 gave similar output to your post but GPT4 was much better. Output:

In your story, you can introduce a diverse set of characters, each with their own unique background and story. Here's a brief description of possible characters that could be found in the abducted prison camp on the alien ship:

> Kaito Tanaka: A young man in his early 30s, Kaito has a light skin tone that contrasts with his dark, almost black hair. Born and raised in Tokyo, Japan, he is a computer programmer by profession. Kaito is known for his quick thinking and resourcefulness, traits that he finds increasingly useful in the challenging environment of the alien ship.

> Emiko Sato: Emiko is a middle-aged woman with a medium skin tone and greying hair, which she often ties back in a traditional bun. A native of Kyoto, she was a history teacher, specializing in Japanese culture and heritage. Emiko's deep knowledge of her country's past gives her strength and a unique perspective on their current predicament.

> Hiroshi Nakamura: With his fair skin and youthful appearance, Hiroshi is a college student from Osaka, studying abroad when he was abducted. His energy and optimism bring a glimmer of hope to the otherwise grim atmosphere of the prison camp.

>Yui Fujimoto: Yui has a medium-fair skin tone and stands out with her vibrant red hair, a color she chose to dye it before her abduction. A professional violinist from Sapporo, her music is a solace to her fellow abductees, providing a much-needed escape from their reality.

> Kenji Watanabe: An elderly man with deep-set wrinkles and a gentle demeanor, Kenji's skin is weathered from years of working outdoors in his small fishing village in Okinawa. His life experiences have made him wise and patient, qualities that make him a natural leader among the abductees.

> Naomi Kobayashi: Naomi is a nurse from Nagoya with a caring and compassionate nature. Her light skin and soft features, coupled with her calm and reassuring presence, make her an invaluable member of the abducted community, especially in times of crisis.

The distinction between usage and production is a silly one imo. Every producer is also probably a consumer of tools.

> A transparent but poor decision is not really much better than an opaque poor decision

But it is better, or rather more desirable, as it is easier to fix and testable against rules which might be very important in certain contexts.

But selling a copy is.

Not sure if it's an error from using autocorrect, but you probably want to use complying instead of complaining.

They might move to easy to entry positions where shortages exist though.

>Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist.

This posts triggers the hell out of me. Amsterdam has been trying it's hardest for _at least_ 5 years and probably a lot longer to get rid of these types of tourists. With english bachelor party goer's in particular.

> but if you look at Academia you will clearly see that the best and most productive researchers are the one that work nonstop.

And those researchers (at least those I know personally) get health issues due to the complete asinine work load. Including a well respected professor just getting straight up heart problems every time he would get onto his old campus.

We should seriously reconsider what we glorify in academia before it gets to late.

> (Side note: "identification number" really means "opaque string". IDs are not numbers. If adding or multiplying them together doesn't make sense, they're not numbers.)

Eeehhh I'm not sure if this necessarily true. A telephone number is definitely a number but addition doesn't make all too much sense on them.

If you want to specifically talk about objects that require addition and multiplication to be properly defined on them then you can always use Groups and Rings.

> This article seems to assume that computers are secure as long as source code is secret. The opposite is true, only open source can give maxium security.

Citation needed, open source can just have as problematic security problems as closed source even when they are high profile.

Especially when it comes to fundamental research a lot of work is "useless" until it isn't. This idea of picking winners before people even start at a college is not the way to go.

Many people would argue that linguistics is one of those useless studies compared to comp sci, but it shares deep connections to research in logic and by extension type theory (see handbook for logic and languages)

Why do you think so as the page literally goes on stating that the results are non- reproducible and we're heavily over exaggerated (not by the researcher though)

I don't know if abuse is the right word considering that youtube most likely just breaks even.

IIRC IME also does a lot of core functionality like power regulation. Unlike many in this thread probably think, it does provide a lot of core functionality that you probably don't want removed.

This is a thing and was used in this fantastic piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg

However the way they obtained these dumps is by going deep into debugger mode of the cpu which makes me doubt anything spooky would be going on.

IMO the margins for selection can be pretty big w.r.t culture.

Also that last point probably only work if the punishment is incredibly big, and I doubt something like that exists for the scale MS operates at.

Why would one ever do this as a requirement for patentability is that it doesn't exist as prior art?