usernomdeguerre

The part i've not been able to wrangle is what to do about companies which are internationally monopolies? Couldn't they just pick the winners/losers of local companies and ensure their own supply chain is the one that survives? That seems worse than a national monopoly that is at least HQ'd inside your borders.

Is this maybe a mistaken abstraction?

What if the 'settings' being described here aren't 'project settings' they're 'personal settings for the project'.

I imagine we're following dev ecosystem conventions where everybody puts their tool settings in the project folder so they know where to find it and can share it; but are agent directives like this closer to a 'tool', or closer to a 'contributor'?

If the latter, I wouldn't expect to see "Joe's personal list of naughty and nice commands" in my project files either, certainly not under 'settings'. So just don't put them there.

Or this is a correction that has already happened in other markets, and is now unwinding here:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ai-bubble-has-alre...

I think this is a reasonable question. The moment this activates and exfiltrates or destroys a system the entire model family, training pipeline, and company are burned, no? How can you construct plausible deniability if your model will (presumably deterministically) activate on trigger?

I wonder if it would be closer to coercion, bribery, or tampering?

There are probably certain humans who would follow commands as given, perhaps a child or child-like?

See also Cyberpunk v3.0 by Kayn Slamdyke, extracted from SA forums, https://writeups.letsyouandhimfight.com/kayn-slamdyke/cyberp...

>An obvious recent trend is that the moment we announce a new set of CVEs and their associated fixes, there is an army of AI-using researchers who throw all those at their models and harnesses to find similar mistakes or omissions in the fixes. By taking this process to the public all the way, ideally we get more help to do that scrutiny better before we ship releases.

>We recognize that the amount of work needed per received vulnerability report does not shrink by doing them in public, but we think that we might share the burden among more people easier, and we hope that lessons and documentation brought up in these discussions will be easier to spot and learn from.

This sounds like an actual Circle of Hell.

From my view, it just crystalizes that critical software should be supported at international levels. Looking at this page https://curl.se/sponsors.html and this page https://opencollective.com/curl shocks me that my smallish county has larger budgets and grants than this software receives in an entire year.

Includes Epic Games suit against Apple, namely, their request to not be found in contempt for their store fees.

Displaying my igonorance on this, but what is the purpose of this? Testing? Or perhaps as an integration for other filesystem libraries?

I thought this was an interesting piece of information, along with a bit about how the provincial government subsidizes these industries.

>For decades, protein in China meant pork. Pigs fed the workers who built the cities and staffed the factories that powered the country's economic boom. China became home to half the world’s hogs, whose appetite for grain, especially soybeans, redrew trade flows from the US Midwest to Brazil.

>But that era is over. When Reuters visited Huang in August, she was tossing slop to her last 10 hogs in a cobweb-covered barn. Some $75,000 in debt, she planned to slaughter them by autumn.

>“I have been raising pigs for over two decades, but it has never been as hard as the last two years,” Huang, 57, said. “Pig prices are so low. People in the cities just stopped eating pork.”

Which is exactly what i'm advocating, to make the issue a self-preservation concern via voting.

If anything i'm asking for the conversation to stay 'on-goal'.

If I take for granted that the waterline surveillance increases under previous administrations (and i do, i implicitly conceded it) then the only meaningful discussion is then on its magnitude.

So you tell me, are Republicans going further with this program than before? And furthermore, are Republican courts and Republican congresses going to curtail it at any point?

I already know my answers to this, but if i'm going to be criticized I think it should be against the meaningful alternative facing us where Republicans retain control of these branches.

If you have some information on how much they approve or support these programs i'm open to hearing it, but i'm not sure how much "Both parties have bad people/policies" contributes to a discussion on this specific program.

I agree that they're going to try; however, can they succeed? I do wonder whether AI reverse-engineering could be done even in a case where the only streams you have are video, audio, and input.

Naturally, decompiling a binary would be simpler comparatively, but for models of sufficient capacity it seems the 'simpler/complex' axis has been shrinking.

So long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts, congress, or the whitehouse then these things will continue to metastasize.

The entire experiment here is to bring the surveillance apparatus' of dictatorships to the US. They no doubt see the durability of these dictatorships and one-party states around the world and are drooling at the prospect of running it in the US.

Dangerously foolish.

>It's a shame that events like this are affected, but I can't help but be glad that this ended...

I suppose you'll leave it up to the reader to determine what it's been replaced with instead. Things like this perhaps? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/white-house-says-us-amb...

if so that seems to make 'right to repair' all that more of an imperative.

No they didn't.

>Carrefour (CARR.PA), opens new tab said 80 of its supermarkets had been hit but that the vast majority of its 6,000 stores had not been affected.

It would be useful to know the scale, as it sounds very similar to an attack on US Military Commisary's a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49508506

Usually i'd feel like this was a large-scale operation but there's no denying that AI tools can copy/parrot/clone this type of work near instantaneously, so who knows.

I feel like if the gap were so monumental that he could just point to a monument of it, rather than hand-waving at "the vertical professionals".

Alternative interpretation of the numbers; there's only a subset of productive work that LLM's are 'capable' of doing at this point. That is, work that's verifiable by a machine or doesn't require verification. Thus, the cleavage points are along that axis and-- naturally-- most human beings don't have that kind of work.

I doubt there's a way to structure this perfectly given one has to start from the baseline of these taxes being introduced, but is 21-25 a reasonable benchmark?

Naively, it felt like a lot of fluctuations and rubberbanding occurred right after Covid which wouldn't necessary make representative set.

>They got all these proofs...

Your phrasing is illuminating that perhaps they aren't engaged in the creation, understanding, or integration of these proofs by humanity; they just have them. For them, this is a slidedeck they can pass to investors, creditors, the marketing department. Something they can add to the employee onboarding pamphlet.

What should they do? Hyperbolic maybe, but perhaps engage with humanity.

I agree. If they are sapient[0] or sentient[1] then the way they're being treated at present is probably some kind of torture or murder.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Yet many humans don't mate for life, throughout human history. So is that their biology?

I get the impression that much of Xray's usage is in mainland China, do many other ecosystems use it? If not, why not?

Naively I would expect solutions out of Mainland China to be more sophisticated due to the internet restrictions within the country and the number of people who are digitally-connected.

But perhaps they cover for usecases one doesn't see outside the gfw.

As far as I know there are still some things "the platform" actually won't deliver; for instance I'm fairly certain there's no searchable combobox that's fully accessible. One ~must leave the platform to give users the experience the expect.

That means "the platform" itself is actually teaching people to work "off platform" and arguably will always have gaps as functionality and expectations evolve.

Admittedly, the habit really ought to be 'I need to make a combobox -> does the platform have what I need? -> Research, evaluate, test -> Otherwise, make it' but I don't begrudge people for skipping the middle steps.

>As we’ve said time and time again: the internet will always route around censorship.

Is this still true, or has it become a truism? It seems nations like Iran and China (and events like Kashmir come to mind) have progressed the state-of-the-art and playbook to where we can't actually say it definitively will route around it.

Now seeing that the US and EU are flirting with these similar restrictions it's making me wonder how we'll be able to keep hold of these principles.

Maybe my concern with that adage is ultimately its passive voice, since it takes 'active' action by people to give us those options, and will probably take more actions by more people to keep it alive now.

Greatly appreciated the candor. I've included a few slides into text that i thought were eye-opening to me:

From his Kernel Recipes 2026 slide on Mythos

```

  Mythos's 79 vulnerabilities:
  24 - no detail at all "something crashed"
  14 - not a bug at all
  3 - totally made up data
  15 - already fixed in latest release
    - 11 by others
    - 4 by anthropic
  20 - fixes were needed
    - 7 "assume a malicious filesystem image"
    - 2 "assume you can inject a malicious network packet into the middle of the stack"
    - 2 "NOMMU"
    - 6 sctp networking issues for untrusted devices
    - 2 ipv6 minor network issues 
    - 1 gpu driver for local malicious user

```

GHK called this "10 'real' bugfixes", which to me sounds like there's a wild hype machine around these companies and uncritical parroting of every press release they make that falls apart when you engage the affected real experts.

> General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Stellantis (which owns 14 auto brands, including Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, and Jeep), said some recipients of driver data were prohibited from independently using or selling any data they are provided. But the Northeastern researchers found those restrictions aren’t necessarily effective: After they showed their findings to Honda, the company instructed one of its vendors, Amplitude, to delete all of the location data it had received and stopped sending it going forward.

Better late than never?