Yes, there are even semi-decentralized exchanges based on smart contracts, where you can find trade offers posted by others and execute them in a zero-trust way.
They do accept/forward messages without checking if they are special carrier-only ones. ~10 years ago I had some fun sending a "voicemail received" message to people, which caused android phones to display a notification which couldn't ever be dismissed. IIRC it only worked on HTC phones and required root/xposed. SS7 in general is built with total trust in connected systems.
Edit: I think it was called "HushSMS"
The hack is actively run by an entity. The virus is completely autonomous and replicating. Add in the capability of adding zero day capabilities to it, polymorphism, etc and your pretty much fucked
HF is in business of selling inference for open-weight models. Setting the precedent of "Your business needs to only use approved safety-certified models from trusted providers or you could get sued for what the models do!" wouldn't exactly benefit them. And contrary to what you may believe, nvidia as a whole would also rather not have the entire demand for their products depending on two big companies.
Imagine thinking that repeatedly demonstrating your inability to control your own models is "a stunt to convince the government that only they can be trusted to operate it"
Truly spectacular gymnastics. I'll give it an 8/10.
It's so scary and dangerous that to run LLMs you need to be from this country, have a government license and spend at least $100M a year on 'safety'. We know this first-hand and are leaders in the field of "safety" now that we learned from our mistakes.
No one is confused about how regulatory capture works. We're confused by the allegations that labs are deliberately producing safety problems in order to achieve regulatory capture.
Repeatedly blowing up your own munitions factory is not a good way to prevent other people, but not yourself, from running a munitions factory. Obviously.
Obviously the far better solution is to blow up other people's factories, or make allegations of unsafe conditions at other factories, and repeatedly demonstrate excellence and safety within your own.
Here, award-winning gymnasts are alleging that the frontier labs are simply choosing not to do that, and instead choosing to have explosions and minor fires every few days at their own factories, many of which they try to hide (and probably many more of which they successfully do hide). Believing such astounding bullshit is a testament to the power of motivated reasoning and the conspiratorial mindrot that now plagues our civilization.
I fail to see how training a hacking model with access to source code of open-source services and other prior knowledge, running it in a "sandbox" with many of those heavy, big attack surface services running on the same network, and being proxies to the general internet, giving the model some access to those services and then prompting "GO HACK YOUR WAY OUT!" is "blowing up your own munitions factory". I see it more as setting fire to your own factory for insurance fraud, or bringing in a bunch of north korean hackers and giving them the same task.
It's not exactly something normal users want or are able to do. And those with the compute and know-how will do it regardless of any laws.
I also fail to see how giving a presentation at a big conference, describing the entire incident is trying to hide it.
Well I can see why you're failing to understand the problem when you don't even understand the fact pattern. Have you tried reading the MTER / Redwood reports? Or the OpenAI report?
> Repeatedly blowing up your own munitions factory is not a good way to prevent other people, but not yourself, from running a munitions factory. Obviously.
No, that's not obvious at all. It seems like a perfect way to demonstrate the danger of the category as a whole, then position yourself as learning from your mistakes and willing to cooperate/support/advise.
More perfect than simply not making mistakes and allowing your competitors to make mistakes (or to, apparently, fake mistakes in their own attempt to get regulated)?
Regulators reading OpenAI's 99th mea culpa: "Ah yes, well I bet they've figured it out this time! We should regulate everyone else!" Lol what a joke.
> More perfect than simply not making mistakes and allowing your competitors to make mistakes (or to, apparently, fake mistakes in their own attempt to get regulated)?
I don't think any of them are in a position to allow or not allow their competitors to make mistakes.
The point that you're not getting here is that the advantage comes from actually being seen to make mistakes, and then signalling contrition and commitment to rectify them. That persuades people of both the need for regulation, and their own subsequent responsibility (which implies trustworthiness to participate in the regulation).
> Regulators reading OpenAI's 99th mea culpa: "Ah yes, well I bet they've figured it out this time! We should regulate everyone else!"
Again you're not getting it. The drive isn't to "regulate everyone else", it's to regulate everyone, period. The whole point of regulatory capture is being able to (a) use regulatory compliance as a competitive advantage, and (b) influence the regulatory regime in your favor -- you want to be a target of regulation just as much as your competitors in order to achieve that.
Messaging that the whole industry needs to be regulated, but that you're ready and willing to work with the regime, is exactly how you do regulatory capture. Demonstrating that you are capable of completely mitigating risk on your own without any intervention is an argument against regulation from the outset.
> I don't think any of them are in a position to allow or not allow their competitors to make mistakes.
Of course they are, by your own hypothesis. You believe it makes sense for the other parties to engage in this behavior. If it makes sense, then they will do that reliably, and one entity can just defect and stand above the rest.
> The point that you're not getting here is that the advantage comes from actually being seen to make mistakes
Ah yes, the ol' "I just do retarded shit so people think I'm a genius" trick. Who could possibly doubt the strategic genius or umm... existence... of such a strategy.
> Again you're not getting it.
No, I understand it completely. Obviously regulatory capture only works if it in reality inflicts asymmetric costs on other parties.
I'm not sure what hypotheses I've proposed that suggests I think one organization has control of the behavior of entirely other organizations -- can you explain where you think you've seen this?
> Ah yes, the ol' "I just do retarded shit so people think I'm a genius" trick. Who could possibly doubt the strategic genius or umm... existence... of such a strategy.
Well, I suppose anyone who sees the extent to which such a strategy might be effective at achieving their goals might be included to do so.
I believe both myself and others have made a plausible case as how messaging "we've created something we can't control without political intervention" has the dual effect of both increasing the perceived value of the product itself, and laying the groundwork for regulatory capture in a market where early dominant players have a natural incentive to pursue regulatory intervention.
I don't see how characterizing the situation as simplistically as you're attempting to do here functions as a meaningful counter-argument.
> No, I understand it completely. Obviously regulatory capture only works if it in reality inflicts asymmetric costs on other parties.
No, I don't think the "only" works there. There are plenty of ways that regulatory capture can advantage one party over another without it being based on economies of scale or cost thresholds.
One way is to influence regulations such their qualitative requirements directly target non-cost-related aspects that distinguish the firms from each other, e.g. placing restrictions that burden or favor product features or operating practices already implemented by some firms and not others, or targeting non-operational aspects that distinguish firms, like their board composition or financial structure.
Oh, would you look at FelonyBench! It seems that the top scores are from companies exactly like this that boast about the crimes committed by themselves on social media all the time.
I'd say it's even closer to a 9/10 -- there has to be enough of a perception of a general threat to gain support for regulation, and making your own organization appear to need to be regulated, but also be willing and able to comply with regulation that your competitors can't, is exactly the way to thread the needle on this sort of thing.
Seems like he really wants to limit the spread of videos showcasing the behaviour of the protesters, and their backgrounds... This goes hand in hand with his pathetic speech about how it's all fake news and AI.
I don't see any problem with my reply. My idée fixe is not replying but freedom, and whenever people suffer from lack of it and it's possible to fight back, I suggest something.
This thread is relevant. See quote "in the name of security", correctly implying that it is not a good reason and that users should control their devices.
If you just look at the whole thread, you'll see a higher-level comment noting that in some countries, all banks require the same proprietary Android, and so "switching banks" is not a solution. Your suggestion was tone-deaf as it so often is.
You are probably right, although a number of Europeans on HN confirmed that it's possible to fix this by switching banks. Thanks for the remark. It would be helpful if you could name the country, so I (or somebody else) could verify or disprove your claim.
Really? I have yet to see an app that doesn't work with adb/scrcpy, even the ones with google attestation. Worst case, I suppose it's time for a camera pointed at the screen and a plotter with a stylus. (Until they start watching the front camera lol)
reply