utilize1808

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.

I am afraid you might have seriously underestimated the number of annoying people around you.

If they make it really right, then eventually the annoying people will come too and we are back to square one.

What if your neighbors decided it's just easier to socialize in a centralized club and go there all the time?

Gradually, you "lose" neighbors to socialize with because people (and things in general) gravitate towards the path of least effort. Eventually you will have to go to the club too.

Centralization can be contagious.

Is it just me but I feel "social" would imply centralization. After all, if I want to socialize I will want to go where other people go, using a tool/client/channel that works for most people --- this inevitably leads to centralization.

So it's outsourced data science?