halJordan

Oracle isn't a part of the magnificent seven he/she was talking about. If something happens to Oracle (which i think is doubtful unless the USG clamps down on foreign ai factories- which are paying off for Oracle) then it will be handled the way Toshiba was dismantled. So, not with a bang, but a whimper

For the magnificent seven, no they're fully capable of absorbing their debt load with their current businesses.

I really don't believe that you believe what you're saying. Organizations are allowed, fundamentally, to change themselves and then demand their component parts fall into line.

A great example that is lauded historically are the Lex Julia. If we take you at your point then Julius Caesar reforming Roman bureaucracy and demanding compliance while firing and executing those who don't fall into alone is a bad thing. Yet everyone agrees that this was a necessary step to curb, excessive corruption.

So a fundamental level is perfectly fine for an organization to chart a different course. You can disagree about charting a different course with regard to AI, but you shouldn't attack the fundamental principle that everyone already agrees is fine in any other circumstance.

A good faith answer to the question; classification hinges on damage done to the United States if it is released. So for example, a law might constraint or enforce the usage of a capability against an enemy, and this, of course would hang on some sort of spectrum also probably defined in law or in an agency interpretation. The agency interpretation is also probably classified and so as you start applying that spectrum, you enter gray areas and niches, and extremes, and so you have to ask a lawyer to disambiguate. And so this lawyer's interpretation is now the fulcrum on which employment of classified US capabilities is based. So therefore, teleologically this lawyer's interpretation has to be classified because it all goes back to whether public knowledge of this capability will damage the United States interest. if you know what the lawyer's interpretation is then you know the spectrum if you know the spectrum then you know the capability then you can damage the United States.

I think we're supposed to hate proton and everything they do bc one of their donators is politically toxic to some people.

This was true up until the Supreme Court decided that executive power is not at all bounded by legislative power. Since all classification procedures and authority are directly derived from the president's executive power, the president does in fact have all of what you say he doesn't. Including the ability to classify/unclassify documents as legal cover.

"You can't tell [whether it's AI or not]"

This is, to me, the key conceit when the complainers complain. Sometimes it's obvious (like not even changing the visual style). But most of the time it's just pogroms.

Chatjimmy got taalas aquired

That was twenty years ago my dude

You think that claims of an actual honest to god working robot is somehow so out of sync with this audience that we need to be so cynical we call it a conspiracy? Am i literally the only one who's wanted a Robbie of my own since i read i, robot as a kid?

Otoh "patching 0 click rce's is materially ruining my life" is the sort of detached, brain dead take that have put us into this situation. I can believe you think doing your job materially ruins your life, I'm just surprised you said it out loud and it's the top comment

It's important to not ignore the preexisting context before making these negative inferences. There was huge outcry that iOS exploits were being made and sold for millions of dollars each and white hats had no way to do their own research bc of Apple's behavior. So this was created to mollify that outcry. So it makes sense that you're required to report vulns and also required to not sell them to the highest bidder.

So we agree, their carelessness is everyone's problem. So Google's action is just a tradeoff you disagree with

One of the biggest outcrys was when it was alleged the us hacked Merkel's phone. Surely that fits in your constraints. But it was the worst of the worst that the us could do when it emerged. Let's not equivocate

This is the argument slave traders used.

I think it's past time we stop letting the doers of an org pass off responsibility for their actions. The engineers coded this. It is on them as much as it's on some nameless exec

And buried under the lede is that one of the compromised people was one of the organization owners. So it seems like the culture of insecurity comes from the top, which is unfortunate especially bc they keep acting like "this could've happened to anyone guys"

You're right, you can't run them in China, all models in China need to be vetted and approved by their cyberspace authority. But it's more of a "businesses cannot use them to provide services" kind of thing

They're about as indictable as binary blobs found in your BSPs or the 3rd party drivers you get through Windows Update

They are not banning local inference. The USG has several fedramp dc's where they run local weights of several proprietary models. You guys are getting ridiculous

It's not regulatory capture to remove software/harware from adversaries.

No one was saying "Oh McAfee is really gonna control the us's antivirus market regulations" after they banned kaspersky.

The ?? Is training recipes & datasets

If that's the case then you need to get out of your own head. Your paradigm is the only thing keeping you from understanding

Alright, then you're replying to the wrong comment.

I don't really get why it's a free pass for you though. Some things should go without saying. Like being able to expose yourself in the most private area of your home for one of the more vulnerable moments you have. Why is "meta don't do this" such a non starter when it's this egregious?

You just shouldn't have to defend yourself to this level in a civilized country.

What no? It's pandering. Pandering of course works, that's why it's done. But just because you're the one being pandered to, doesn't mean it's not pandering.

There are theoretical attacks involving malicious weights. But the risk profile is so outrageously in favor of them not doing it that you'd essentially have to be an anti-China conspiracy theorist to find it plausible, let alone likely.

No, they used minor correctly.

This only applies if the sole reason of the purchase is to gate an apple capability. If the purchase does more than that, literally anything, you can gate all the apple parts on an iPhone.

That unit is a symptom of their prodigious skill not the cause. Israelis are good at cyber for the same reason the US is good, and the same reason Russia is good. They have an outsized tech industry.