People want all sorts of things. Somewhere there’s a limit to what you can actually get in a finite world so that your kids and grandkids aren’t left with a lower standard of living because they have to pay for your externalities, never mind all the other damage to the ecosystem. Washing dishes when you want is probably okay, but dishwashers are remarkably efficient and really a red herring, or a motte-and-bailey type argument. Wanting to own, say, a massive F150 for the convenience of having your own personal tank and feeling better than others is probably not okay.
Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Russia’s modus operandi. They want to make us paranoid and suspect them every time something suspicious happens, painting a picture of some kind of super powerful actor, while always retaining plausible deniability about everything.
As in "promote linking every attack of uncertain origin to Russia thus creating the fear of widespread hybrid warfare, while focusing actual attacks on Ukraine's weapon suppliers if possible"?
Application-level banning seems very inefficient, these domains should be banned at the network (IP) level. Just drop any incoming packets from these domains/IPs, send absolutely nothing back that even confirms that you exist.
From a domain registry operators point of view Cloudflare are the worst of the bunch by orders of magnitude.
Google DNS are busy but its a hand full of IPs and reasonable. Cloudflare is non-stop never ending traffic. I don't know WTF they are trying to get. I've also seen TCP queries from those same Cloudflare IPs so this is not the result of a DDOS attack on them.
This - but unironically. It has been striking how fast the public Web has descended into bot wars. I think something new will probably start to take over relatively soon.
People who used to contribute valuable content have pulled it because the bots were scraping it and reusing their work for free. Of course that was always technically possible but it used to be considered bad manners and not enough people did it to break the whole model. That's evidently no longer the case.
People who want to access real content are now interrogated with the assumption that they're probably a bot before they can even see a basic web page. Those interrogation systems are themselves are now running through a very small pool of providers with far too much influence and control to be healthy.
One of the most valuable means of communication and shared knowledge we have ever invented is being effectively destroyed before our eyes. I don't know what the solution will be - though I fear that the idea of privacy and anonymity online will suffer serious collateral damage - but I suspect that some new information network only available to people willing to identify themselves as a specific real human being in some relatively robust way will be a big part of it just as many sites are now gating their content behind user accounts.
I wonder whether the latter might be sufficient: have your terms state that user accounts are only available for real people and by using any automated system to attempt to create one the operator agrees to pay the site operator some ludicrous amount of money in recognition of the damage to their operating model that is posed by deceptively allowing automated access. And then make sure that such terms actually stand up in court - by legislating to enable them if necessary - in enough of the world to kill the AI scraper/bot model.
Yes, the clock slippage is a constant factor, entirely predictable. If made public it would probably have catalyzed the discovery of special relativity soon afterwards, but then people would’ve been super confused because its predictions still wouldn’t match the observations and indeed would widen the discrepancy rather than narrowing it!
The point is that while good to remember, and specifically Fred Brook’s “No Silver Bullet” article about it, there are second order effects.
If coding becomes 100x cheaper, what’s going to happen next? At least to some degree, design and planning was there since coding is expensive. (Not just coding, debugging also got squashed by AI and was an expensive part of the job)
This is why the original comment seems pretty spot on, organizations will learn how to skip more phases, and startups are probably a place where this will be happening faster. (Not clearly though, a lot of big tech are happy tokenmaxxing to try and not stay behind those startups when they come)
Brooks' point was more about accidental vs. essential complexity. You seem to be implying that design was only ever an artifact of "expensive" typing, but design exists to prevent systems from collapsing under different failure states.
If the cost of emitting syntax collapses without adequately resolving the essential complexity then you have not eliminated the design phase and you're just externalizing your failure modes onto downstream teams and systems.
It's not a paradigmatic shift though. It is able to do what it was already doing, but better. You can't really claim there has been a staggering improvement since then and anything that it is doing now is wildly unexpected.
Uh, our understanding of it has. Doing automated cyberattacks using novel zero-days, or resolving open math questions, was perhaps one of the many somewhat plausible futures in 2022, but absolutely not an inevitable or even particularly likely one. If you disagree, I’d like to see your analysis and predictions from four years ago, otherwise it’s nothing but hindsight bias.
Ah yes, because white hats aren’t allowed to use AI to find zero days, and solving open math questions is such a horrible thing, why even bother advancing mathematics at all if someone can’t spend ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to only get partway there and feel good about themselves? This new understanding definitely makes me want to regulate AI so only the Right People™ can use it, that definitely won’t empower rival nations who lack such regulation and give them an advantage.
I still think washing machine and milk are more relevant scenarios for the daily lives of normal folks, particularly for physical harm.
Most people aren't using agents currently and even for those that are, the direct harm is limited to the digital realm. Of course, this could be major, but still, it won't kill you.
Indirect harm, I'll grant. But the user has agency in this instance. If you drink bad milk or your washing machine has faulty wiring, not so much.
I think the whole point is to come with regulation before AI can harm anyone.
If they are planning maidbots or android bots replenishing shelves in shops, or system that have to manage some focal points like electricity or your semaphore system, maybe it is better to have a law before they start to ship this appliances.
They are loading AI pretty much everywhere, even on cars.
I can see how some companies will cut testing in the sake of money saving.
I agree milk need more regulation than AI, but this shouldn't be an excuse to not regulate AI adequately.
Both of the topics have their own importance and both of them need good focus to regulate them at the best of our capabilities.
reply