- if evenly distributed (which is unlikely), then roughly 7-8% of all kids would feature in Meta exploitation yearly
That suggests very high reoccurrence; but even reoccurrence suggests the total rate remains quite high. A reoccurrence rate of 100x would suggest that roughly 1 in 1000 kids is exploited on Meta, yearly.
Having been in Seattle, I’m not sure there was a time the NSA wasn’t involved with technology — eg, UW hosted meetups between researchers, criminals, and the government at least that long.
Who built the Echelon follow-up, proto-dragnet system that provided the framework for the spying you bemoan? — the one extended and taken live in the early 2000s? Those same 90s hackers you glorify.
> provided the framework for the spying you bemoan
The community I’m talking about definitely weren’t like secretly building tools for these agencies. I mean this sincerely I have no idea what point you’re making. The agencies existed and made tech so by logical necessity people worked there. I didn’t say all people in computing.
There was a prevalent community of programmers and hackers who understood what these organizations represented and would never be on a forum blithely talking about some tool they made as if it was acceptable. Shame on anyone using these tools and the lack of objection to this post is a metric of how disgusting computing culture and really this forum are.
> The community I’m talking about definitely weren’t like secretly building tools for these agencies. I mean this sincerely I have no idea what point you’re making.
You knew exactly what point I’m making, because it’s the first thing you responded to. And indeed, what you responsed to throughout your question. So no, you’re not being sincere.
Those groups always interacted and your bald assertion of their morality is directly contradicted by my experience of their interactions (eg, criminals and government corresponding at UW) and the change in Boomer and Gen X hackers following 9/11.
> There was a prevalent community of programmers and hackers who understood what these organizations represented and would never be on a forum blithely talking about some tool they made as if it was acceptable.
From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab?
Again, my experience from Seattle is that the idealism was always more show than reality — and government technologies were not only consumed, but built on contract when interests aligned (eg, stopping cyber warfare or dismantling terrorist networks).
What you’re describing — ineffective moral absolutism — wasn’t what I recall from the 90s hacker ethos that always existed in a liminal zone, but rather the 2010s era co-opting of existing groups (eg, Anyonymous) for moral crusading.
> From their computers that originated in a US Navy lab?
This is a logical non sequitur. It’s like being fed your lunch by your kidnapper and when you protest they say, you’re using the energy I provided to protest. Like that’s a contradiction somehow, it’s not.
Whatever the participation in the past may have been does nothing to excuse or make okay future behavior.
And to the extent I did understand your point, I was confused because it was such a strawman. As I explained I wasn’t talking about every person in computing (of course). Interacted doesn’t mean they were the same or had no moral distinction.
> ineffective moral absolutism
I don’t even know where to start with how flawed your thinking is. Effectiveness isn’t the driver for having morals. And obviously it was effective because I’m here protesting. Neither is it absolutism. Objecting to the gross abuse of our government doesn’t equate with absolutism.
Computers should serve their owners not corporate interests and dragnet surveillance. That was understood. 2010s Anonymous was a different thing in a different context that I wasn’t contemplating.
I’ve made frameworks that turn a project entirely over to the AI — eg, turn a paragraph summary of what I want into a book on that topic.
Obviously I get much less out of that — I’m not denying the tradeoff, just saying that some people are all the way to “write a short request, accept the result” for (certain) thinking tasks.
Sure but even that falls on the spectrum. The request requires some thinking. So if we're not being pedantic then people will criticize because natural language isn't
I think it’s a difference in kind, ie, if we return to above[0] and the discussion about “outsourcing our thinking” — then it deeply depends on what we hope to accomplish. That’s what I was originally intending to convey: that people are actually inhabiting the space you used as an extreme because they’re operating in a different mode.
That is, we seem to be conflating different cases - ie, being an expert versus hiring an expert. A manager and an SDE get different utility from the LLM.
I think I expressed it poorly, but I think that we need to consider that outsourcing thinking entirely is the right answer in the way that subcontracting or outsourcing or hiring itself can be; and that we seem to get caught in a “spectrum” or false dichotomy (ie, “is outsourcing good or bad?”) discussion, when the actual utilization of LLMs, their content, etc interacts in a complex way due to the diversity of roles, needs, etc that humans themselves have. And the impact on acquired expertise is only one aspect, for which “less work, less learning” is both true but too simple.
- crowdsourced data, eg, photos of airplane crashes
- people who live in an area start vlogs
- independent correspondents travel there to interview, eg Ukraine or Israel
We see that our best war reporting comes from analyst groups who ingest that data from the “firehose” of social media. Sometimes at a few levels, eg, in Ukraine the best coverage is people who compare the work of multiple groups mapping social media reports of combat. You have on top of that punditry about what various movements mean for the war.
So we don’t have “journalist”:
- we have raw data (eg, photos)
- we have first hand accounts, self-reported
- we have interviewers (of a few kinds)
- we have analysts who compile the above into meaningful intelligence
- we have anchors and pundits who report on the above to tell us narratives
The fundamental change is that what used to be several roles within a new agency are now independent contractors online. But that was always the case in secret — eg, many interviewers were contracted talent. We’re just seeing the pieces explicitly and without centralized editorial control.
So I tend not to catastrophize as much, because this to me is what the internet always does:
- route information flows around censorship
- disintermediate consumers from producers when the middle layer provides a net negative
As always in business, evolve or die. And traditional media has the same problem you outline:
- not entertaining enough for the celebrity gossip crowd
- too slow and compromised by institutional biases for the analyst crowd, eg, compare WillyOAM coverage of Ukraine to NYT coverage
Homotopy type theory was invented to address this notion of equivalence (eg, under isomorphism) being equivalent to identity; but there’s not a general consensus around the topic — and different formalisms address equivalence versus identity in varied ways.
Your last paragraph is their point: genes are regulated to produce that effect. The genes themselves aren’t doing it, but eg diffusion of chemical signals to inactivate genes.
Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
> Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
For the consistent parts - eyes may be different colors but are overwhelmingly consistent - what else could be the ultimate cause but DNA? For example, if those chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals produce the same results billions of times over 200,000 years, then they must function the same overall. How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
Your eyes would be misplaced if the process from cell clump to mat to tubule failed due to chemical signaling failure, but the whole embryo tends to be spontaneously aborted when gestation fails so catastrophically.
And despite genitalia being roughly one of two forms and similarly positioned, chemical signals can disrupt their formation.
> How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
They don’t produce the same results with perfect accuracy — 75% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, at least in part due to developmental failures.
But the problem with this argument is simple: you have a human cell everywhere you have human DNA, so those correlations with DNA are also correlations with cellular machinery and with particular chemical signals from the mother. There was no point in those 200,000 years where DNA operated independently of those other mechanisms — we can only say the system as a whole reliably creates those features.
Interesting points, especially about the challenge of correlation. I guess we could remove DNA and see what happens ...
Somehow the machinary is passed down: Do we know of another mechanism besides DNA that is self-perpetuating? Is there any living creature without it? Prokaryotes (bacteria) even have DNA.
Or is there a way to do it without self-perpetuating mechanisms? Is that logically possible? Some machinary might be perpetuated by other machinary, e.g. the chemical might recreate the electrical, meaning it's not self-perpetuating. But that's not different than DNA: DNA itself isn't the machinary, but its self-perpetuation is what recreates other parts.
I suppose some parts of the environment are consistent, such as sunlight, air, water, and heat, but the environmental stimuli must trigger something that is already there.
> I guess we could remove DNA and see what happens ...
If I have a stool with three legs, and remove one leg causing it to fall, can I conclude that removed leg is what made it stand?
You’re making the same mistake as before in reverse: DNA would do nothing without a host cell or chemical signals, either.
> Somehow the machinary is passed down: Do we know of another mechanism besides DNA that is self-perpetuating?
The system as a whole is self-perpetuating, but DNA is not self-perpetuating: without a host cell and without ambient chemical signals, it cannot propagate. That’s in contrast to ribozymes which can be self-catalyzing RNA, ie, truly self-propagating chemicals.
In the RNA world hypothesis, such self-catalyzation was the origin of life; and by the time DNA evolved, it did so within a running biological system and as merely one component of cellular replication.
As a whole the system of chemical signals, DNA, and cellular machinery propagates; but just like our stool example, removing any of the factors causes that to fail.
The DNA removal comment was as joke; sorry if that wasn't clear.
No system is self-perpetuating, per the Second Law; all need other inputs. What makes the machinary yield the ~same results ~every time is DNA.
> In the RNA world hypothesis, such self-catalyzation was the origin of life; and by the time DNA evolved, it did so within a running biological system and as merely one component of cellular replication.
Is there evidence of that? Afaik the earliest evidence is prokaryotes ~~3.5 billion years ago, and prokaryotes generally have DNA.
The US is huge — you can’t jam everything everywhere. Talking about just cities, you still can’t jam everything everywhere.
But yes, targeted suppression/oppression (depending on your allegiance) will almost certainly use jamming — in fact, I’ve spoken with some Antifa about how they jam EMS frequencies at their events.
This reminds me the way the software was distributed in eastern countries when there was no internet. People went to market to meet other people, and they were peddling/colporting (look up the term in French) cassettes with the software.
The same can happen now - people would walk down the streets to certain places, to become hubs of information, but with no physical contact. Of course those places would be were the jammers would head to.
Actually this sounds like a good theme for book... however as long as I live on this world, I've noticed that if I invent something, there are already two people on the internet who have invented it already, so... please give me the title :)
To save others the search: Colportage is the distribution of publications, books, and religious tracts by carriers called "colporteurs" or "colporters"
Also, amusingly, France is most definitively in Western Europe, so I’m a bit confused about GP’s link between Eastern Europe and “go look up this French word”.
Italy’s demand was completely unreasonable and CloudFlare threatened to end business in Italy, including informing impacted partners.
People talking about EU sovereignty and US hegemony then crying Italy isn’t allowed to dictate terms globally are showing they’re not people with principles — they’re just losers who would be every bit as hegemonic as the US, they just lack the power to be and are publicly crying about it.
The best PR that Cloudflare could possibly have here is just the demand letter from AGCOM (aka the Italian comms agency).
Just reading what they are demanding from Cloudflare and their reasoning for it is enough to turn pretty much anyone to Cloudflare’s side. And that’s before even digging into the details of the context preceding that whole conflict
CloudFlare already does business that way — eg, enforcing local laws inside the country.
CloudFlare’s objection to Italy’s demands were that Italy demanded CloudFlare censor websites outside of Italy for everyone, globally. CloudFlare refused to do so and said they’d stop providing services to Italy.
Do you realize what you’re asking for in ClodFlare listening to Italy? The US will get total say over what content can be hosted anywhere in Europe (by CloudFlare), due to that precedent being set (and their greater ability to coerce ClodFlare).
Your comment is contradictory: you phrased it as respecting sovereignty, but your actual demand is that CloudFlare allow the US to enforce edicts on the EU.
- there are 2.4B under 18 globally
- which means 500k is 0.02% of all children
- or around 1 in 5000 children globally, per day
- if evenly distributed (which is unlikely), then roughly 7-8% of all kids would feature in Meta exploitation yearly
That suggests very high reoccurrence; but even reoccurrence suggests the total rate remains quite high. A reoccurrence rate of 100x would suggest that roughly 1 in 1000 kids is exploited on Meta, yearly.
Anyway, disturbing.
reply