What's the difference between the idle imaginings of a god's mind and a universe scale simulation?
I always got advanced AI vibes from Devs, that it was a mind interfacing with reality in some sort of weird inception / simulation / manifestation way.
That can be a type of mind, though? It can also be a type of interface - a tap into a system not fully understood, controlling the perspective or view but not the process. The whole "mind of god" Deus/Devs, etc - I think it's left ambiguous on purpose for the hook but I always took it to be an AI flavored story at the core.
Maybe. The plot itself is based on a short story that Garland read, both the 2007 original [0] and its 2022 rewrite [1]. Qntm is great and their latest book, There Is No Antimemetics Division, recently was on HN as well [2].
60 days, long enough for the US to exploit the vulnerabilities discovered by Claude Mythos, short enough to plausibly be bureaucratic corporate awfulness by Microsoft when all is said and done. Basically freezing you and other security software out of protecting the bad guys they particularly want to get at until after the bad guys get got, then everything goes back to normal and Microsoft says "oops, here, we fixed your access."
Adtech Money. They've got GPUs, they've got the infrastructure, and they've got the advertisement platform, and the point is getting AI that can exploit the adtech and create a flywheel effect, maximizing return from the data they collect from Insta, WhatsApp, Facebook, etc.
It's not just about LLMs, it's about being able to model consumers and markets and psychology and so on. Meta is also big in the manipulation side of things, any sort of cynical technological exploitation of humans you can imagine but that is technically legal, they're doing it for profit.
Ah, so screw the Amish, too. And anyone who doesn't want 24/7 tracking or to be permanently connected and available. Those people suck and shouldn't be able to enjoy baseball.
The audacity of the guy, depriving all those scammers the opportunity to dupe him into gift card scams.
The point isn't protection from attacks that target children, it's gatekeeping content to keep it away from children. Providers are more vulnerable to attacks, overall, because of that gatekeeping, because of ht inevitable use of tools like VPNs and proxies to bypass the mechanisms being used. This sort of anti-anonymity is specifically and precisely targeted at decreasing the security of individuals, subjecting them to surveillance and control by the state. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" and never did.
The four horsemen of the infocalypse are always about power grabs, they're never about actually protecting citizens, or children, or securing a country or region.
Grabbed up as much ram as they could, nearly no questions asked, at above market rates in some cases, ramping up the perceived demand and decreasing supply significantly.
On the other other hand, they can put whatever they want in there, and because they've forced everything into arbitration with "third party" mediation and carved out their own little niche of the justice system, they'll never actually go to court, they'll just settle and evolve their ToS and contracts and word games accordingly.
Most regulation is more or less suggestions to prevent widescale exploitation, to give the system a means of holding bad actors liable after the fact. They aren't deeply considerate, domain competent, principle based policies designed with the best interests of individuals, they're compromises between power brokers. Even things that might be explicitly illegal aren't enforced in practice unless there's a political advantage to expending resources on a particular issue.
They dress up the legislation in fancy names like the Patriot act and sell you on bits put in place for public consumption, but the meat and potatoes of US governance is the never ending, unstoppable expansion of power over and presence in every life.
HIPAA is as much or more about regulatory capture as preventing abuses of privacy or protecting individual rights. In practice, there's not even a standard, just a loose handful of suggestions for protecting data, and when massive breaches occur, data that should be protected under HIPAA gets released, institutions and businesses get a slap on the wrist. Depending on the party in power and the politics of the offender, they might not even get a slap on the wrist, they'll just get more contracts and less press coverage until the public forgets.
Anything touting benefits to individuals or citizens is probably being used as a Schelling point for a broader strategy.
These problems get fixed with a proper return to 1st, 4th, 5th Amendment rights, a relitigation of copyright and personal privacy and liberty, legislated as a digital bill of rights. We don't need new amendments or even really new laws, we just need proper enforcement and interpretation of existing ones. Privacy and liberty are inextricable. Anonymity and fungible identity in public communications are non-negotiable.
The whole situation is an exercise in picking the policies that do the most good and the least bad - exactly the type of gray area modern politicians love, because it means they have plenty of cover and fog of war to get away with shit.
reply