gruez

1. If for whatever reason OpenAI causes damage, they most certainly are at fault and have to pay up. When people complain that OpenAI is "getting away with it", they're most certainly talking about it in the criminal context.

2. Cars have pretty specific laws around them (eg. driver licensing and "reckless driving") which makes criminal prosecutions easy. The same doesn't exist for operating AI agents or even computers. For instance, it's arguably reckless to connect a windows XP machine to the internet, possibly allowing criminal or nation-state hackers to use your computer to commit crimes, but you won't be thrown in jail for it.

GPU backed securities also don't have that issue because they're far more transparent. The problem with mortgage backed securities is that nobody has the time to inspect the credit worthiness of each mortgage in a MBS, each creditor has hidden correlated risk (eg. if the whole economy tanks), and on top of all that trenching obfuscates the risk. Lenders therefore had to take the credit ratings on face value. It's hard to make the mistake with datecenter/gpu/anthropic debt.

Subprime loans blew up because it was a bunch of opaque securities (mortgages sliced and diced together) that lenders thought were safe, but really weren't. Anthropic debt doesn't have this issue because everyone knows about anthopric and their business model.

>It's a joke–a riff on a Parks and Recs meme making fun of Venezuela at the time.

Poe's law strikes again. Of course nobody thinks crashing prod should result in jail, or most software engineers would have spent some time behind bars by now. However it's entirely unclear whether @CountHackulus meant "of course autonomous car engineers should be jailed, just as if an engineer signed off on faulty plans" (which to be fair, also happens), or is just repeating my joke with bridges.

not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) nothing happened to the lead designer (Moisseiff) or engineer (Eldridge)

>A human driver, mowed down and killed a family of four in my city [1]. They got six days in jail.

And that's an easy case to prosecute too, because the driver clearly broke laws beyond just "crashing into people":

>when they were killed by Lau, driving 70 miles an hour in the residential area of West Portal in San Francisco.

Depends on the circumstances, if it's a mechanical issue without an obvious cause neither the car or driver gets suspended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic...

>Someone signed off on software/hardware that lacked sufficient protections, find out who.

Crashed prod? Straight to jail.

>What it will do, is actually drive up the cost of all business, and worsen employment simultaneously.

That's the point of raising interest rates. It's demand destruction. If raising interest rates didn't raise the cost of doing business, it wouldn't work.

>You can typically see a rise in prices (inflation) following a rate hike. Even when it's needed to combat regular elastic demand side inflation, it takes time to have a positive effect.

Are you sure it's not just reverse causation? eg. inflation has gotten so out of hand that bankers are raising interest rates to counteract it? After all, inflation isn't a random walk. If it's bad one month, it's likely to get worse the next, especially when central banks haven't raised interest rates yet.

Which is what AI is RLHF'd to do, but using AI, much less undisclosed AI is against HN guidelines.

> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

Did you AI generate this? The wording looks suspicious and sure enough, it's flagged by pangram as AI.

>Turns out Google killing Android privacy was completely useless as a way to prevent people from being hacked, but they might use this type of stuff to justify even more closing of supposedly "free" paltforms.

If you're talking about the sideloading restrictions those were intended to stop social engineering and scams, not from getting hacked via 0days.

>Likewise, using privacy messengers like Signal is also useless if they can just take control of your entire device anytime they want.

Source? play services is privileged but not that privileged.

OP: >they probably purged pro Democrats while leaving Russian bots alone

In that context it's pretty obvious "bots" are referring to disinformation or "troll" bots, not bots doing indexing/scraping.

There's no evidence of that happening. In fact there's counter-evidence:

https://bsky.app/profile/antibot4navalny.bsky.social/post/3m...

>Without any stats/metrics about engagement of real users with these accounts you have absolute no basis to do any comparison to drops of water.

I think it's fair to assume that if x.com refuses to provide stats that are easily obtainable for them (eg. views or followers), that those stats aren't favorable to them.

Source?

Is there any serious analysis of this? Presumably it wouldn't be hard to do. Find some right wing telegram channels/x accounts/subreddits, whatever, then chart their activity. All the evidence I've seen are people passing around the cloudflare chart.

>Yeah weird thing to purport that feels extremely misleading. Suppose one way to find out is to look at accounts that were suspected of high bot activity and see if they got the same amount of engagement as the weeks before the strikes.

But nobody did that. All we have is a bunch of people on twitter/reddit passing around the same pixelated screenshot from cloudflare, using it to claim that russian bots have been stopped in their tracks.

The first tweet doesn't even mention anything about bots.

>The popular memes that were based on people's assumptions or guesses or stories based on... cloudflare own tweets!

???

>"Bot traffic" refers to [...], not necessarily activity on social media platforms.

I guess they could have been more explicit and straight up said "no, that doesn't mean russian trolls are offline", but their tweet isn't ambiguous.

From the article:

>Our analysis here is a reminder that client ASN traffic volume is an unreliable proxy for interpreting automated bot behavior. Defending against automated threats requires inspecting request behavior, such as identifying shared JA4 fingerprints, monitoring anomalous request rates, and applying WAF rules to sensitive endpoints, regardless of which network the request originates from. Physical infrastructure is static, but malicious automation is built to move.

Of course they're tooting their own horn that you need their advanced features and expertise to block all the bots, but it's approximately true. At the very least it's hard to block purely on ASN without inflicting massive collateral damage on privacy conscious users (ie. using VPN), because baddies can (and do) use the same commercial VPNs.

Buried lede:

>across Cloudflare's network, there was no evidence that the strikes knocked social media manipulation offline or otherwise disrupted malicious activity on the Internet.

This directly refutes the popular memes going around that russian trolls magically went offline because of the attack.

Because assuming the premise is true, there will be a dip in bond prices (ie. higher yields) when oracle gets downgraded, because pension funds or whatever have to dump their holdings. You buy the dip, not at the top.

>3. if they get classified as junk, any pension portfolios holding Oracle stock must sell as they can't hold junk stocks.

Wouldn't hedge funds or PE recognize this arbitrage opportunity and eat this up, making this a non-issue? Vastly simplifying this: suppose "junk bond" means the chance of default is greater or equal to 10%. Of course it's bad if the risk of oracle going bankrupt edges up from 9% to 10.1%, but we shouldn't expect pandemonium from the 10% cliff edge, because there's plenty to be made by selling all the bonds that pension funds are obligated to sell, because now they have higher yields (yields move inverse to bond prices).

The servicing company could be different than whoever actually owns the debt.

>It's not a clickbait headline. It's a direct quote.

I'm chastising the author of the article, for the "Banks are now trying to offload..." framing, not the commenter. Hopefully the fact that I was commenting about the headline made this clear.

>And the key point of it is not "larger than ever" but "out of scale"?

Isn't that "larger than ever" but with more exclamation points?

> Wage growth has remained relatively muted over the past year. That, combined with higher inflation, means Americans are earning less for an hour of work. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, fell 0.5 percent in September, and were down 0.7 percent from a year earlier. It was the sixth straight month of year-over-year declines in real earnings.

Where are they getting this data? This directly contradicts their claim:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Isn't that just because corporate bond issuance is at a all time high?

https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260711_EPC...

Which of course is a valid point to raise, but you should just say "corporate bond issuance is at a all time high", rather than some clickbait headline about how "Banks are now trying to offload the AI data center debt" and it's "out of scale to anything we've thought about, ever."

You don't need a rogue hack to pump up your valuations when all the top labs already publish hacking benchmarks in their release announcements. It'd be like car companies intentionally staging accidents with their cars to show how fast they can go.

>I'm saying the labs should take more of the blame.

Which misses the point entirely because the hack itself was inconsequential. No data was actually stolen, and it doesn't seem like hugging face actually suffered any losses aside from whatever effort they need to expend to investigate / clean up the hack. Neither the victim or the government wants to bring legal action. What was consequential is proving that AI can autonomously hack systems and do it unintentionally.