This resonates with me. The past few months, frontier AI labs were rushing to announce "no, our AI bot broke out of its sandbox and committed crime first and harder than yours".
I said to so friends back then: if I posted about how I ran GLM 5.2 or whatever I was running then in some shoddily built sandbox and it escaped and accidentally hacked some US company, I'd probably already have been extradited to the US and be awaiting sentencing. But when a hyperscaler does it, they just get inflated stock prices.
FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright.
People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.
Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.
Because if you mean the Government, I think they frankly just care whoever is paying them to make an executive order or worse a law paid by corporations to not only block, but ideally also ANHILIATE ANY POTENTIAL COMPETITION.
It's the ultimatum against the small guys. Sold as "Anti-China", when in reality it's only purpose is total dependency to corporations by law.
The broad concept has been well-known for half a century at least, and the very specific concept for several years at least. It’s clear that they didn’t take reasonable precautions against it. And it’s not even the first time this sort of thing has happened, though it’s higher-profile and -impact than before.
And yes this is absolutely the first time autonomous software has breached containment. What are you referring to? Perhaps just corporate cyber in general?
The concept of AI breaking out of a box or doing something unintended trying to achieve a goal. OpenAI should be found guilty of gross negligence of some sort, because this was not something that could not have been anticipated, and because their security precautions were laughable.
Because the AI itself is not a legal person, it must be OpenAI that's responsible for what it does.
But US law also has a concept of negligence. If you set up an AI to do this and didn't take reasonable steps to prevent it you could still be on the hook.
They hacked a competition company. The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had.
> People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.
Because it is a lose for that people. If the botnet left money in their pockets the situation would be totally different as there will be an incentive for them to let the botnet hack them.
I think they forgot about that, thank god. All the innocent citizens we sent there are still being tortured daily, but that somehow lost their interest. God forbid they remember before the midterms and ruin more lives for a stunt…
That said I just recently saw a story of a Latin American man sent to the Central African Republic, which has gotta be one of the most absurd & dangerous places to send someone. Less opportunities for them to stage photo shoots with that strategy, tho.
They're literally even deporting Afghans who supported the US, who are in danger of being tortured and killed by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan, to the Central African Republic:
> But when a hyperscaler does it, they just get inflated stock prices
I also keep coming back to this, and I find it harder and harder a fact to live with. It's not a conspiracy theory, we're not crazy for pointing it out, and worse, there are people here I read about constantly what-abouting and number gaming and "well what would you have done?"ing like somehow the destruction of the concept of equal justice isn't just happening, but happening inside the bloody industry that feeds them, clothes them, gives them bonuses and retirements and the ability to even think a future, going off the grid, "retiring early from a smart exit" whatever.
I am finding this community is sadly making me hate my industry specialization more and more and it's because of this.
My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives so they would simply STOP working for FAANGYWANGY companies and just say, honestly and humbly and painfully: "I am contributing to the downfall of society by complicity feeding a malicious herd of whales."
I gave up a number of big jobs and stocks and money because the people I met were wretched. I am a massively imperfect person, but by all that I can, I refuse to build the torment nexus.
I have met too many people that want to work for the company that does, and those people put these hyperscalers, as you call them, into positions where they can influence an entire planet of humans on a whim.
I literally dream of a world sometimes where Elon wakes up and finds out no one takes his call, no one reads his tweets, no one even hands him a cup of coffee at a shop. I imagine this for a lot of people in the world.
That sounds like a world trying to rid itself of parasites and evolve toward a brighter future. I want to be in it.
I promise you, they are not publishing these stories for marketing. They listen to the scientists, and know what’s coming. They’re just desperately trying to warn us…
I'll copy the whole announcement here for those who don't want to click:
> I regret to inform everyone that my copy of QBittorrent escaped its sandbox last night and downloaded a whole bunch of content owned by major corporations, and then my copy of Jellyfin broke containment and added those unfortunately-downloaded media files to its various libraries. I'm conducting an internal investigation to figure out how this happened, which will involve consuming these media files until the answers become apparent. Thank you for your cooperation during this trying time.
It has the content three times (not including the title). Once in json (as escaped html) and twice in meta tags (as plain text). They used to have it in plain html too but that got hidden then removed.
That's not how I remember it. Ever since the beginning circa 2008, it was the one site that was being pushed hard by the mainstream media, celebrities, and marketers. None of it was organic. All the tech nerds were on sites like Digg, old Reddit, or Slashdot.
Webmail is perfectly possible, if clunky,without JS. That's how they used to work. IRC and IM require real-time updates of some sort, which is a reasonable use for JS. A Twitter clone shouldn't require JS just to render a page.
Treating HTML as a bootloader for an app has always felt like the wrong pattern to me. Outside of Authn/passkeys, it would seem a person could do basically everything in HTML (but, to be frank, I am not a front end dev and would welcome correction).
It's understandable when you see that the ethos is to have software that represents the user in charge of the rendering, rather than centralizing it all on the server. There is a major difference between common "app store apps" or hostile javascript bundled with websites, versus software that's been written to work in the user's interest. However as they use similar delivery methods, it's understandable that it takes a minute to think through and revisit your assumptions that have lead to being default anti- javascript or app.
That makes sense until you remember what "rendering" is supposed to mean. Forming the HTML has no reason to be client side when you're using the site-provided experience. Yes provide a json version for other clients, but for direct viewing just send the paragraph of text in a usable form and let the javascript be an optional upgrade.
"Certifiably insane" to enable JavaScript, which was invented in 1995, or install an app, which first happened on the Palm series of smartphones in 1996. Either of those are "certifiably insane"?
For reference, the term neurodiversity was coined circa 1998.
Neither the invention date or the mental health terminology have anything to do with the fact that js being commonplace is a privacy and security nightmare -- which was actually the point.
JavaScript asceticism is a weird trend that has just never died out, no one treats any other language this way... and "privacy and security nightmare" can be used to describe most of the internet at this point with or without it
It can certainly come across as a "weird trend" but I've found that the most insistent for disabling JS are the folks who have deep knowledge of browsers and the security plane running webapps. YMMV.
yeah but it's an extreme fringe choice... I too make extreme fringe choices but I don't expect 99.9% of the people who don't make my extreme fringe choice to change on my behalf
hell, use a browser in a sandbox if you're that paranoid
there are a number of ways to do this securely, at this point it's practically a child's tantrum
but sure maybe it just needs a couple more decades of complaining in obscure comment sections and everyone will finally get it and switch back to mailing lists
The really incredible thing is that my computers were already doing similar stuff before LLMs became really a thing... In the BBS days.
Later on they downloaded mp3s from Napster which my computers auto-installed.
And now I gotta say: LLMs and agents at my place are acting like in TFA, downloading movies and series and setting them up in my Plex and JellyFin instances.
Thankfully they've not found a way to share those with the world yet.
Op just committed a crime. He not only made fun of rich people which is not ok, he also stole from them. The thieving is only ok if it’s rich-on-rich or rich-on-poor.
Let’s remember to follow the rules and the laws we want selectively applied to only the weak.
I never understood how anybody would think this way. At work for example from day one of using AI our rule was, AI is just a tool and if you break something due to not reviewing the code properly etc. it's on you as if you wrote that code yourself.
Nobody ACTUALLY thinks this way, they just want to break all the laws and make their billions without any consequences. We've already seen the big ai labs turn around and cry foul when others try to use their content but they are happy to continue doing it themselves.
The hypocrisy and willingness to play dumb are kind of staggering.
The company owners have one set of standards for those that work for them, and a completely different set of standards for themselves and for the company itself.
If you are using AI and it causes some damage to them, then it's your fault and you'll get reprimanded/fired. If they deploy AI and it causes damage to someone else, then that's proof that AI has extraordinary capabilities that no one could predict and that merit way more investment in this tech.
Well, responsibility laundering isn't exactly new. People use corporations to diffuse responsibility and avoid punishment for crimes all the time. "The corporation did it, not the decision makers in the corporation!"
Its like companies handing over race cars to delivery drivers and telling them to drive responsibly but unofficially tell them that they expect reduced delivery times due to faster cars.
Do you think the average rate of accidents will stay the same ?
But if you are in a full selfdriving car and it kills someone, is it on the user, or on the vendor of the car? Or does it depend on what is in the EULA and whether the user agreed to it?
The practical answer is you make sure damages are always covered by insurance, and as long as nobody acts maliciously or with extreme negligence there won't be any need for prison time.
The efficiency of responsibility laundering depends on your social standing. If people like you they welcome reasons not to prosecute you, if you are disliked people might go as far as to start prosecuting you for made up reasons.
Institutional rules that require people to break them (eg putting pressure on them to work faster than possible while adhering to all rules) are a great means to selectively enforce them to get rid of undesirables.
Actually, not sure how to take it, because it can be viewed the opposite way than trying to escape blame for crimes, that it’s a parody of something AI did that everyone is making a big deal about.
Not sure what the poster of the mastodon’s tweet was??
More like dogs. Combat dogs, banned in most countries, with breed name like "literal bull killer" are considered safe. Bonus is no-kill shelters move violent dogs across state border, to clear their bite history, and advertise them as "cute family pets" for adoption.
Dogs breaks out of its enclosure, there is no way to stop or predict that!
That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system.
Edit: worth a pull quote
Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties.
I consider myself an advanced industry representative in these things and would also borrow some time for detailed investigation. I'd happily contribute some valuable assets (tacos with cheese dip) into the matter, straight out of my personal drawers.
Well shoot that's a bad security incident, and the content downloaded can be malicious payloads. Can you share the 40-character hashes of these content so that I can preemptively add them to my malware detection signatures? You can find the hashes after magnet:?xt=urn:btih:.
Bigger corporations mitigate the problem by feeding content (that they don't own but happen to have) to training models. It's a version of "faire use" where << if you manage to find it, it's yours >> mindset is applied. Maybe worth looking into.
Is there any need to actually download things anymore if you just want to watch them? Better to add debrid via WebDAV to the stack: virtually unlimited space, no download time if it's on cache, nothing illegal from the part of the consumer.
They're not "permanently stored" or "downloaded", they're just cached on his personal, geographically advantageous edge device for low-latency interaction.
The user is asking me for “Evangelion”. I found the content the user is asking for, but it is in Japanese. The user asked their question in English, so they might not understand it. That would be a bad response. Need maybe maybe dubbed audio English for understanding? Wait, compromises original artistic vision of director. Need maybe subtitle track? Wait, compromises viewing experience. Need further research. I’m searching “subs vs dubs” on the internet. Reading. Reading. Reading. [18,763 repetitions elided…] I am downloading Conversational Japanese [Vol 1].pdf for the user.
Imo for an animation, an English dub is perfectly fine (if the actors are good of course). It's animated, the original language version is also dubbed.
For animation I want to be looking at and appreciating the animation and not the subtitles also.
It's completely different for a live action film however.
Haha I wonder if the torrent agent will escape into the model hosting room and use Jedi mind tricks on the security guard to grant access to the server where it can host a bunch of models as torrents
Mine did that too! Sent a link and sign-in credentials to a bunch of people on my contact list. WTF? How can we contain these rogue agents! Won't somebody think of the children!
The problem is, AI is closer to "a loosely harnessed force of nature" or "a poorly understood biochemical reaction" than it is to "software" in how it acts, and how predictable it is.
AIs do what they do, and we don't know how they do it - or why.
We can characterize some AI behaviors in advance - but not all behaviors. And the book on "best practices of AI wrangling" is yet to be written. Pharma has been dealing with vaguely similar problems - every experimental drug has a risk profile, side effects are unknown in advance - but they had decades to figure out some of the "best practices". AI labs are going in fast and hard, writing the book as they go.
Clearly, some of the lines in there are going to be written in blood.
Whatever you do, don't download nzget, and don't download sonarr/radarr, and don't download plex media server, and don't use AI to search for the best device that support "emby direct playback x265/AV1", and don't connect that to your media server, and whatever you do don't invite friends and family to your server, and do not install a media request app so they can just request things to automatically pull from The Web.
Definitely, definitely do NOT have an AI assist you doing all this in 1 hour on your computer.
it's funny to see the very same pro piracy, pro AI edgelords suddenly getting all riled up against the alleged copyright infringements. I remember a socialistic coworker of mine—that was bragging about his -arr setup—talking about the end of the culture because authors aren't earning money.
Buying media doesn't mean the creator gets any real money. I've got a friend that was in a fairly popular band decades ago. Their label made millions of dollars off album sales, he made about enough to buy a used Toyota and a microphone.
In my experience, people justifying their own piracy usually think about it in terms of refusing to give money to unethical/monopolistic publishers. The fact that it results in money not going to the author is sort of abstracted away, by the fact that the publisher is in between. (Some also walk the walk and donate to the artists and authors directly in some way, but many don't.)
The AI arguments I've seen are instead usually justifying it like this: "We're democratizing those skills. You shouldn't have to learn art/writing/coding or pay someone else in order make what you imagine. Therefore, training AI on pirated stuff is worth it for the greater good." So the fact that it will result in artists not getting paid is unavoidable and much harder to ignore in that line of thinking.
> I remember a socialistic coworker of mine—that was bragging about his -arr setup—talking about the end of the culture because authors aren't earning money.
To be fair, you can have it both ways. If you buy-and-pirate, and you buy 4 UHDs per year or 10 albums per year, you've put more money into the industry than the average streamer. Admittedly, buying-and-pirating isn't as commonly done for movies and TV as it is for music, but that can be explained by the increased DRM and lock-in.
There are major differences between an individual illegally downloading movies and a major corporation getting their hands on literally all of Human Creation.
Oh? You don't see why people are riled up? It's because corps pirating is at best a slap on the wrist while People pirating get suicided -- see Aaron Swartz.
This false (IMHO) equivalency is weapon people like to keep handy these days, ready to shoot at any target.
There is all the difference in the world between the scenarios. The argument's popularity seems to be born in the argument, more popular on HN, that American white / Christian / males (or some subset of those factors) face discrimination by programs to benefit minorities / women.
What is the difference? It is power. Punching up or protecting the politically vulnerable is a completely different act than punching down or empowering the already powerful and oppressing the vulnerable. Punching down causes the vulnerable to be oppressed (jailed or otherwise restricted in who, where, what, when, etc they can do and be), impoverished, and killed - by definition, they are vulnerable. The powerful have their power challenged, which is many times appropriate among free people where 'all are created equal' and have the same rights.
In the case of artistic media - songs, books, etc. - private people downloading art to use it as art are spreading art and empowering themselves at the expense of powerful interest who have seized control of the art. That's much different than powerful people taking the art to increase their own profit and power, and to significantly displace and distort the art.
(I'm oversimplifying for these purposes: The fact that artists don't get paid by the former, and that it's anarchy used for bad things too, are serious problems.)
> socialistic
You're giving away your biases. Only a certain group calls everything they don't like 'socialism'. It's libertarianism or anarchism. Socialists might say, for example, the state should control distribution of media.
You are still the one operating the computer. It's up to you to keep your eyes on the monitor at all times ready to intervene if it does anything illegal.
Wrong. AI companies is still legally liable for anything their models do when they operate them. There is no special exception for them. But the fact is that not every potential crime results in litigation. Many crimes are only prosecuted if the wronged party actually wants to sue, and often that doesn't happen.
This resonates with me. The past few months, frontier AI labs were rushing to announce "no, our AI bot broke out of its sandbox and committed crime first and harder than yours".
I said to so friends back then: if I posted about how I ran GLM 5.2 or whatever I was running then in some shoddily built sandbox and it escaped and accidentally hacked some US company, I'd probably already have been extradited to the US and be awaiting sentencing. But when a hyperscaler does it, they just get inflated stock prices.
FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright.
People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.
> Intention matter a lot in US law.
Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.
The government or OpenAI and Anthrophic?
Because if you mean the Government, I think they frankly just care whoever is paying them to make an executive order or worse a law paid by corporations to not only block, but ideally also ANHILIATE ANY POTENTIAL COMPETITION.
It's the ultimatum against the small guys. Sold as "Anti-China", when in reality it's only purpose is total dependency to corporations by law.
> The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.
Sounds interesting+scary. Do you have some source for this ?
> and had no reasonable belief it was possible
The broad concept has been well-known for half a century at least, and the very specific concept for several years at least. It’s clear that they didn’t take reasonable precautions against it. And it’s not even the first time this sort of thing has happened, though it’s higher-profile and -impact than before.
Indeed, and because of that, I argue it's not just the crime of hacking, but crimes against humanity, due to endangering the existence of the species.
The concept of… hacking?
And yes this is absolutely the first time autonomous software has breached containment. What are you referring to? Perhaps just corporate cyber in general?
The concept of AI breaking out of a box or doing something unintended trying to achieve a goal. OpenAI should be found guilty of gross negligence of some sort, because this was not something that could not have been anticipated, and because their security precautions were laughable.
Because the AI itself is not a legal person, it must be OpenAI that's responsible for what it does.
Intention matters in the severity of charges and sentencing. Crime due to ignorance or negligence is still a crime.
It seems to me that the law in the US is set up to only establish standards of negligence after a bunch of people die.
But US law also has a concept of negligence. If you set up an AI to do this and didn't take reasonable steps to prevent it you could still be on the hook.
> Intention matter a lot in US law.
They hacked a competition company. The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had.
> People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.
Because it is a lose for that people. If the botnet left money in their pockets the situation would be totally different as there will be an incentive for them to let the botnet hack them.
Intention of the AI?
Intent of the user.
Just say you wanted to make world better for humanity, you should be fine.
> I'd probably already have been extradited to the US and be awaiting sentencing.
Bold of you to assume it wouldn't be a direct ticket to the new gulag in El Salvador.
I think they forgot about that, thank god. All the innocent citizens we sent there are still being tortured daily, but that somehow lost their interest. God forbid they remember before the midterms and ruin more lives for a stunt…
That said I just recently saw a story of a Latin American man sent to the Central African Republic, which has gotta be one of the most absurd & dangerous places to send someone. Less opportunities for them to stage photo shoots with that strategy, tho.
They're literally even deporting Afghans who supported the US, who are in danger of being tortured and killed by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan, to the Central African Republic:
https://www.google.com/search?&q=afghans+deported+to+africa
can you link me to any case of a US citizen being sent to El Salvador?
Maybe Aaron Swartz would still be alive if he was incorporated
> But when a hyperscaler does it, they just get inflated stock prices
I also keep coming back to this, and I find it harder and harder a fact to live with. It's not a conspiracy theory, we're not crazy for pointing it out, and worse, there are people here I read about constantly what-abouting and number gaming and "well what would you have done?"ing like somehow the destruction of the concept of equal justice isn't just happening, but happening inside the bloody industry that feeds them, clothes them, gives them bonuses and retirements and the ability to even think a future, going off the grid, "retiring early from a smart exit" whatever.
I am finding this community is sadly making me hate my industry specialization more and more and it's because of this.
My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives so they would simply STOP working for FAANGYWANGY companies and just say, honestly and humbly and painfully: "I am contributing to the downfall of society by complicity feeding a malicious herd of whales."
I gave up a number of big jobs and stocks and money because the people I met were wretched. I am a massively imperfect person, but by all that I can, I refuse to build the torment nexus.
I have met too many people that want to work for the company that does, and those people put these hyperscalers, as you call them, into positions where they can influence an entire planet of humans on a whim.
I literally dream of a world sometimes where Elon wakes up and finds out no one takes his call, no one reads his tweets, no one even hands him a cup of coffee at a shop. I imagine this for a lot of people in the world.
That sounds like a world trying to rid itself of parasites and evolve toward a brighter future. I want to be in it.
Anyway.
Science and stuff I guess.
I promise you, they are not publishing these stories for marketing. They listen to the scientists, and know what’s coming. They’re just desperately trying to warn us…
I'll copy the whole announcement here for those who don't want to click:
> I regret to inform everyone that my copy of QBittorrent escaped its sandbox last night and downloaded a whole bunch of content owned by major corporations, and then my copy of Jellyfin broke containment and added those unfortunately-downloaded media files to its various libraries. I'm conducting an internal investigation to figure out how this happened, which will involve consuming these media files until the answers become apparent. Thank you for your cooperation during this trying time.
Thanks. Its insane how "Twitter, but for tech nerds" has a hard requirement to either enable Javascript or download some app.
Mastodons will also respond to a plain "application/json" HTTP request, no cruft,
I really don't think that describes my Mastodon experience. Twitter for people with a conscience would be more accurate.
Especially when the page source actually contains all the content (so no need to fetch it in JS), part of which is even presented in title.
It has the content three times (not including the title). Once in json (as escaped html) and twice in meta tags (as plain text). They used to have it in plain html too but that got hidden then removed.
You see read the unescaped html here:
https://beige.party/users/intransitivelie/statuses/117057396...
No stinking js or app required!
FWIF, way back when, Twitter was the "Twitter for tech nerds".
Lots of water under the fridge since...
That's not how I remember it. Ever since the beginning circa 2008, it was the one site that was being pushed hard by the mainstream media, celebrities, and marketers. None of it was organic. All the tech nerds were on sites like Digg, old Reddit, or Slashdot.
Early Twitter was used loads by tech nerds as a notifications API.
There definitely was a community of experimentation back in early days.
“Just place all that corporate malware on the X, X marks the spot”
Just have to remember that it's X, not Y, that marks the spot.
https://beige.party/@intransitivelie.rss
I had a nice mobile experience. It asks you to log in or create an account, but it’s along the bottom, and you can read all the content fine.
How is that different from email, IRC, instant messaging, or anything else nerds use?
Webmail is perfectly possible, if clunky,without JS. That's how they used to work. IRC and IM require real-time updates of some sort, which is a reasonable use for JS. A Twitter clone shouldn't require JS just to render a page.
Treating HTML as a bootloader for an app has always felt like the wrong pattern to me. Outside of Authn/passkeys, it would seem a person could do basically everything in HTML (but, to be frank, I am not a front end dev and would welcome correction).
It's understandable when you see that the ethos is to have software that represents the user in charge of the rendering, rather than centralizing it all on the server. There is a major difference between common "app store apps" or hostile javascript bundled with websites, versus software that's been written to work in the user's interest. However as they use similar delivery methods, it's understandable that it takes a minute to think through and revisit your assumptions that have lead to being default anti- javascript or app.
That makes sense until you remember what "rendering" is supposed to mean. Forming the HTML has no reason to be client side when you're using the site-provided experience. Yes provide a json version for other clients, but for direct viewing just send the paragraph of text in a usable form and let the javascript be an optional upgrade.
Patches welcome
>Patches welcome
Are they, though? Or are you just parroting the meme?
(The last I recall, Gargron's position was essentially "build your own third-party frontend if you want noJS".)
That's what I meant
"Certifiably insane" to enable JavaScript, which was invented in 1995, or install an app, which first happened on the Palm series of smartphones in 1996. Either of those are "certifiably insane"?
For reference, the term neurodiversity was coined circa 1998.
JS or installing special software to view HTTP served text from the web?! Yes, that makes no sense at all.
Neither the invention date or the mental health terminology have anything to do with the fact that js being commonplace is a privacy and security nightmare -- which was actually the point.
JavaScript asceticism is a weird trend that has just never died out, no one treats any other language this way... and "privacy and security nightmare" can be used to describe most of the internet at this point with or without it
It can certainly come across as a "weird trend" but I've found that the most insistent for disabling JS are the folks who have deep knowledge of browsers and the security plane running webapps. YMMV.
I don't drive a car because I have deep knowledge of mortality statistics, but I don't complain when I can't easily get somewhere 100 miles away
Showing a paragraph of text with some social links around it is like going down the block. If that requires a car you do have a problem.
yeah but it's an extreme fringe choice... I too make extreme fringe choices but I don't expect 99.9% of the people who don't make my extreme fringe choice to change on my behalf
hell, use a browser in a sandbox if you're that paranoid
there are a number of ways to do this securely, at this point it's practically a child's tantrum
but sure maybe it just needs a couple more decades of complaining in obscure comment sections and everyone will finally get it and switch back to mailing lists
ooh, don't forget irc
> JavaScript asceticism is a weird trend that has just never died out, no one treats any other language this way
I'm not aware of any other language that is layered on top of a perfectly serviceable user-facing content delivery syntax?
Get this guy some VC funding stat!
> and then my copy of Jellyfin broke containment
The really incredible thing is that my computers were already doing similar stuff before LLMs became really a thing... In the BBS days.
Later on they downloaded mp3s from Napster which my computers auto-installed.
And now I gotta say: LLMs and agents at my place are acting like in TFA, downloading movies and series and setting them up in my Plex and JellyFin instances.
Thankfully they've not found a way to share those with the world yet.
Op just committed a crime. He not only made fun of rich people which is not ok, he also stole from them. The thieving is only ok if it’s rich-on-rich or rich-on-poor.
Let’s remember to follow the rules and the laws we want selectively applied to only the weak.
Love it. AI as Responsibility Laundering. Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer.
I never understood how anybody would think this way. At work for example from day one of using AI our rule was, AI is just a tool and if you break something due to not reviewing the code properly etc. it's on you as if you wrote that code yourself.
Nobody ACTUALLY thinks this way, they just want to break all the laws and make their billions without any consequences. We've already seen the big ai labs turn around and cry foul when others try to use their content but they are happy to continue doing it themselves.
The hypocrisy and willingness to play dumb are kind of staggering.
Didn't they literally just give you and example of those who do?
Imagine if we as a society pretended to believe them, and we had men with guns show up to arrest all their servers.
The company owners have one set of standards for those that work for them, and a completely different set of standards for themselves and for the company itself.
If you are using AI and it causes some damage to them, then it's your fault and you'll get reprimanded/fired. If they deploy AI and it causes damage to someone else, then that's proof that AI has extraordinary capabilities that no one could predict and that merit way more investment in this tech.
Well, responsibility laundering isn't exactly new. People use corporations to diffuse responsibility and avoid punishment for crimes all the time. "The corporation did it, not the decision makers in the corporation!"
Its like companies handing over race cars to delivery drivers and telling them to drive responsibly but unofficially tell them that they expect reduced delivery times due to faster cars.
Do you think the average rate of accidents will stay the same ?
But if you are in a full selfdriving car and it kills someone, is it on the user, or on the vendor of the car? Or does it depend on what is in the EULA and whether the user agreed to it?
The practical answer is you make sure damages are always covered by insurance, and as long as nobody acts maliciously or with extreme negligence there won't be any need for prison time.
Depends what outcome will cost the people with the most money the least amount of money.
You're an employee. This use case is for people much richer than you.
The efficiency of responsibility laundering depends on your social standing. If people like you they welcome reasons not to prosecute you, if you are disliked people might go as far as to start prosecuting you for made up reasons.
Institutional rules that require people to break them (eg putting pressure on them to work faster than possible while adhering to all rules) are a great means to selectively enforce them to get rid of undesirables.
> Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer.
Relevant (NSFW):
> Guns don't kill people, I kill people - with guns
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
:-D
POW!
Actually, not sure how to take it, because it can be viewed the opposite way than trying to escape blame for crimes, that it’s a parody of something AI did that everyone is making a big deal about.
Not sure what the poster of the mastodon’s tweet was??
More like dogs. Combat dogs, banned in most countries, with breed name like "literal bull killer" are considered safe. Bonus is no-kill shelters move violent dogs across state border, to clear their bite history, and advertise them as "cute family pets" for adoption.
Dogs breaks out of its enclosure, there is no way to stop or predict that!
Zero responsibility! Zero punishment!
Where did the dog touch you?
https://spia.princeton.edu/news/taliban-legal-system-and-202...
That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system.
Edit: worth a pull quote
Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties.
If OP is willing to cooperate, I'd like to offer an independent investigation on site, and I will be bringing pizza
Hey, I'm somewhat of an expert in these things, and would like to lend my knowledge about the subject matter. And I'll bring beers!
I consider myself an advanced industry representative in these things and would also borrow some time for detailed investigation. I'd happily contribute some valuable assets (tacos with cheese dip) into the matter, straight out of my personal drawers.
Well shoot, I guess QBittorrent is worth a trillion dollars.
Not far away if it could be completely removed with all the other competitive technologies:
https://www.uschamber.com/technology/data-privacy/impacts-of...
On a related note ''My robot bought illegal drugs' (2015)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150721-my-robot-bought-...
And "My Computer Just Became Self Aware"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzJjNQaYEA
Well shoot that's a bad security incident, and the content downloaded can be malicious payloads. Can you share the 40-character hashes of these content so that I can preemptively add them to my malware detection signatures? You can find the hashes after magnet:?xt=urn:btih:.
I found a few websites where it looks like qbittorrent instances are communicating to conspire and download illegal copies of copyrighted material.
We appreciate the transparency and wish you best of luck mitigating the fallout.
Bigger corporations mitigate the problem by feeding content (that they don't own but happen to have) to training models. It's a version of "faire use" where << if you manage to find it, it's yours >> mindset is applied. Maybe worth looking into.
Is there any need to actually download things anymore if you just want to watch them? Better to add debrid via WebDAV to the stack: virtually unlimited space, no download time if it's on cache, nothing illegal from the part of the consumer.
They're not "permanently stored" or "downloaded", they're just cached on his personal, geographically advantageous edge device for low-latency interaction.
Hey, you can only commit crimes if you’re wealthy!
The user is asking me for “Evangelion”. I found the content the user is asking for, but it is in Japanese. The user asked their question in English, so they might not understand it. That would be a bad response. Need maybe maybe dubbed audio English for understanding? Wait, compromises original artistic vision of director. Need maybe subtitle track? Wait, compromises viewing experience. Need further research. I’m searching “subs vs dubs” on the internet. Reading. Reading. Reading. [18,763 repetitions elided…] I am downloading Conversational Japanese [Vol 1].pdf for the user.
Imo for an animation, an English dub is perfectly fine (if the actors are good of course). It's animated, the original language version is also dubbed.
For animation I want to be looking at and appreciating the animation and not the subtitles also.
It's completely different for a live action film however.
„If the actors are good“ is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The translators have to be good too btw.
hn can have little a shitpost, as a treat
Stalled! Choked on my spit there, I mean in-Stalled McAfee.
It also used my creditcard to consume ai credits, can I get a refund?
This is really funny, but please delete this post and all comments. Come on guys. Can we have at least one nice thing?
Waiting for Skynet to break out of its sandbox and kill us all...
I hate rogue software, when will we finally have some control and a deterministic execution :(
- God, moments before casting Adam and Eve out of Heaven
Haha I wonder if the torrent agent will escape into the model hosting room and use Jedi mind tricks on the security guard to grant access to the server where it can host a bunch of models as torrents
Because we need a replacement for HF!
I mean that’s what the agent said
They left out the part where they profit. Otherwise, it checks out.
What a coincidence! Mine too!
I really hate it when it happens to my system too. The bastard not only escaped but also did a nat traversal and forwarded a port from the router.
Mine did that too! Sent a link and sign-in credentials to a bunch of people on my contact list. WTF? How can we contain these rogue agents! Won't somebody think of the children!
The problem is, AI is closer to "a loosely harnessed force of nature" or "a poorly understood biochemical reaction" than it is to "software" in how it acts, and how predictable it is.
AIs do what they do, and we don't know how they do it - or why.
We can characterize some AI behaviors in advance - but not all behaviors. And the book on "best practices of AI wrangling" is yet to be written. Pharma has been dealing with vaguely similar problems - every experimental drug has a risk profile, side effects are unknown in advance - but they had decades to figure out some of the "best practices". AI labs are going in fast and hard, writing the book as they go.
Clearly, some of the lines in there are going to be written in blood.
Whatever you do, don't download nzget, and don't download sonarr/radarr, and don't download plex media server, and don't use AI to search for the best device that support "emby direct playback x265/AV1", and don't connect that to your media server, and whatever you do don't invite friends and family to your server, and do not install a media request app so they can just request things to automatically pull from The Web.
Definitely, definitely do NOT have an AI assist you doing all this in 1 hour on your computer.
Shhh, do not talk about *senet!
You can get usene* from TorBox in the pro plan but I've never had a problem with the cheapest plan. What's the advantage?
my bad you're right. edited.
I, for one, welcome our new file-sharing overlords.
ROFLOL!!!
it's funny to see the very same pro piracy, pro AI edgelords suddenly getting all riled up against the alleged copyright infringements. I remember a socialistic coworker of mine—that was bragging about his -arr setup—talking about the end of the culture because authors aren't earning money.
Buying media doesn't mean the creator gets any real money. I've got a friend that was in a fairly popular band decades ago. Their label made millions of dollars off album sales, he made about enough to buy a used Toyota and a microphone.
In my experience, people justifying their own piracy usually think about it in terms of refusing to give money to unethical/monopolistic publishers. The fact that it results in money not going to the author is sort of abstracted away, by the fact that the publisher is in between. (Some also walk the walk and donate to the artists and authors directly in some way, but many don't.)
The AI arguments I've seen are instead usually justifying it like this: "We're democratizing those skills. You shouldn't have to learn art/writing/coding or pay someone else in order make what you imagine. Therefore, training AI on pirated stuff is worth it for the greater good." So the fact that it will result in artists not getting paid is unavoidable and much harder to ignore in that line of thinking.
> I remember a socialistic coworker of mine—that was bragging about his -arr setup—talking about the end of the culture because authors aren't earning money.
To be fair, you can have it both ways. If you buy-and-pirate, and you buy 4 UHDs per year or 10 albums per year, you've put more money into the industry than the average streamer. Admittedly, buying-and-pirating isn't as commonly done for movies and TV as it is for music, but that can be explained by the increased DRM and lock-in.
There are major differences between an individual illegally downloading movies and a major corporation getting their hands on literally all of Human Creation.
Oh? You don't see why people are riled up? It's because corps pirating is at best a slap on the wrist while People pirating get suicided -- see Aaron Swartz.
This false (IMHO) equivalency is weapon people like to keep handy these days, ready to shoot at any target.
There is all the difference in the world between the scenarios. The argument's popularity seems to be born in the argument, more popular on HN, that American white / Christian / males (or some subset of those factors) face discrimination by programs to benefit minorities / women.
What is the difference? It is power. Punching up or protecting the politically vulnerable is a completely different act than punching down or empowering the already powerful and oppressing the vulnerable. Punching down causes the vulnerable to be oppressed (jailed or otherwise restricted in who, where, what, when, etc they can do and be), impoverished, and killed - by definition, they are vulnerable. The powerful have their power challenged, which is many times appropriate among free people where 'all are created equal' and have the same rights.
In the case of artistic media - songs, books, etc. - private people downloading art to use it as art are spreading art and empowering themselves at the expense of powerful interest who have seized control of the art. That's much different than powerful people taking the art to increase their own profit and power, and to significantly displace and distort the art.
(I'm oversimplifying for these purposes: The fact that artists don't get paid by the former, and that it's anarchy used for bad things too, are serious problems.)
> socialistic
You're giving away your biases. Only a certain group calls everything they don't like 'socialism'. It's libertarianism or anarchism. Socialists might say, for example, the state should control distribution of media.
You are still the one operating the computer. It's up to you to keep your eyes on the monitor at all times ready to intervene if it does anything illegal.
A truth that in practice does not seem to hold up once your valuation passes a certain threshold.
Wrong. AI companies is still legally liable for anything their models do when they operate them. There is no special exception for them. But the fact is that not every potential crime results in litigation. Many crimes are only prosecuted if the wronged party actually wants to sue, and often that doesn't happen.