utilize1808

The government will just claim that unsanctioned models have the potential to deliberately introduce security vulnerabilities when working on IT projects (e.g. be trained to strongly yet covertly favoring introducing compromised dependencies when you are not looking).

Then laws will be made to forbid organizations who use models other than those from the sanctioned labs to participate in critical projects on national security concerns.

All of a sudden, no business would risk using open source models anymore.

maybe to avoid getting their legitimate email servers banned by other servers since they host (i.e. being exploited) a growing number of spam accounts.

US will ban American companies from using Chinese models and also ban them from dealing with companies who use Chinese models. “Code produced by Chinese models may be deliberately introduce backdoors and vulnerabilities” that kind of thing.

So, browser = Java Runtime; uber HTML = applet?

If there are no young people to produce resources and care, your money is just numbers.

The fact that birth rate is so low in countries with good social security safe net suggests that the society isn't paying enough.

They will eventually converge --- it's only a matter of time.

Obviously going to depend on your definition of "decent". My impression so far is that you will need between 90GB to 100GB of memory to run medium sized (31B dense or ~110B MoE) models with some quantization enabled.

You sweat because you are working with the CLI. Git is intrinsically "graphical". Use a good GUI client or higher level interface (maybe jj) to manipulate git graphs --- stop worrying about "how" (i.e. wrangling with CLI to achieve what you want) and focus more on "what".

Nowadays I just ask my LLM butler to "organize outstanding changes into coherent commits". No new software needed.

I think skills are just a marketing ploy. There is nothing preventing a MCP from serving skills.

The right question is how many of those "human" responses from Rapidata are actually provided by some AI in disguise?

How many developers are using VSCode? How does that number compare with Emacs/Vim?

In many ways, GUI was developed as the natural evolution of TUI. X server, with its client-server architecture, is meant to allow you to interact with remote sessions via "casted" GUI rather than a terminal.

Countless engineers spent many man-hours to develop theories and frameworks for creating GUI for a reason.

TUI just got the nostalgia "coolness".

I think it's the opposite. Especially considering Codex started out as a web app that offers very little interactivity: you are supposed to drop a request and let it run automatously in a containerized environment; you can then follow up on it via chat --- no interactive code editing.

Not if submissions require some small mandatory bet.

Better yet, make a "polymarket" for papers where people can bet on which paper can make it, and rely on "expertise arbitrage" to punish spams.

I don't understand. Are you implying that Greenland can decide to sell itself then?

Sure, you can argue that "justice is expected" doesn't align with how the real world actually operates, but in the modern interpretation, national law enforcers are supposed to be subject to the same law they are enforcing (whether that is actually the case is another issue); they may break the law some times, but being a law enforcer does not exempt them from the obligation of obeying the law. In other words, law and its enforcement apply universally.

In the international case, it is understood that the "law enforcers" are not obliged to play by the same rule. The "enforcement" therefore only applies selectively. Then the law cannot really be said to have been being enforced, because they don't apply to the "enforcer".

The difference is that in the national case, justice is expected; whereas in the international case, it must be understood that there is not supposed to be a "enforcement mechanism" that delivers justice.

I did. It's simply that it's not clear how the "difference" you described makes any difference here.

Was it you who wrote the lines for Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister?

Didn't see that one coming.

Not sure what your agenda is but that's just the law *enforcement* doing the enforcing part. You can argue that it is unjust, that's a separate issue.

> International law has a number of enforcement mechanisms.

That's rather naïve.

How do you propose to enforce the law when the offender possesses the greatest military/economic/technological might, even compared to the rest of the (law-biding) world combined?

US, for quite some time, is the international law.

I remember seeing some tech vlogger discovering that the lag was due to a bug where the fade-in animation of the menu not being played properly, and the menu just "appear" after the missing animation, leading to the feeling of sluggish interaction.

It's different. It used to be that they don't have enough resources to "keep an eye on you" all the time. All those captured activities are only used against you when you are already on the redundancy shortlist. Now AI can watch what and how you are doing things 24/7, producing real-time reports on your productivity and performance --- a truly dystopian experience.

BTW I've already seen something like this being deployed in China. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets the same treatment I am afraid.

Now imagine corporations start to use this to monitor their workforce...

You can’t. It may be set up such that your advisor could sign it if they know for sure that you wrote it yourself with using AI.

Sure. But then it will receive more scrutiny because you are showing a "capture" rather than the raw content.

Not necessarily. It’s basically document signing with key pairs —- old tech that is known to work. It’s purpose is not to identify the individual creators, but to verify that a piece of work was created by a process/device that is not touched by AI.

I feel this is not the scalable/right way to approach this. The right way would be for human creators to apply their own digital signatures to the original pieces they created (specialised chips on camera/in software to inject hidden pixel patterns that are verifiable). If a piece of work lacks such signature, it should be considered AI-generated by default.

My understanding is that the way it works is that your proxy server pretends to be a server ran by some legitimate entity (e.g. cloudflare, aws, etc.). When setting up the server, you will instruct it respond using the cert from the façade domain. To the censor, it would appear that you are approaching a server ran by the legitimate entity. If the censor becomes suspicious of the IP and decides to probe the server to see if it is a circumventing proxy, it would see valid certs but no actual content (as if the server at the IP is broken/down). However, there is actually a secret path+password that you can use to make the server aware that you are a real client and the proxy server would start proxy your traffic normally.