Imagine you have two web pages.

One is a recipe for apple fritters, and the other is an informal ranking of apples by flavor.

Let's say your apple fritter recipe links to your apple ranking list.

Later, you discover someone copied your apple fritter recipe without credit, but it still links to your apple ranking list, using the same wording as your recipe. They're getting more Google SERP juice and ad revenue than yours, despite stealing your article.

Do you see the problem?

I can't speak to the larger trend of AI boosters, as I don't go out of my way to pay attention to them, but the practice of being vocally self-critical and openly discussing the flaws found in one's own software (whether from AI or human analysts) is a damn good idea for reasons that can best be understood by rehashing the vulnerability disclosure debate in one's own mind.

Disappointing but not surprising. This is what happens when you're a billion dollar company and your ethical bone is tied to "we fully comply with the law". You get compliance by default, even if doing so would exacerbate human rights abuses.

I don't know the list of everything they've complied with but contrary to Google who once(?) refused to remove pirate bay results, Facebook blocked it even in private messages

Zuck doensn't care. His motto is 'dumb fucks'. And that wasn't a joke. It's how he sees people

I still remember when Messenger would block certain links, including links to news outlets to curry favour with organisations and governments.

No. It's fraud.

Can't you just, wire your agent into a Python script and have it infinitely check its own work? That would hit the metrics, but do nothing useful.

Hell, throw a Tarot reading in the middle of the loop so the agent has non-deterministic behavior too.

https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/tree/main/plugins/let-...

Amazon management wants to play five-dimensional chess? Play Balatro instead.

Ever heard of killedbygoogle.com?

Right, but since that's the world we have today, our threat models should all account for it until we can meaningfully change things.

> It seems like alot of scientific advancements occurred by someone applying technique X from one field to problem Y in another.

Yeah, you should look into the Langlands project sometime

I'm thinking once we have much of the math literature formalized it's going to be possible to mine commonalities like that. Think of it as automated refactoring, applied to math.

Yeah, why actually engage with moral issues when we can just defer to a status quo that happens to benefit me?

Yes there was!

But, thousand yard stare it was the version for the FIPS patches to 1.0.2.