PlasmaPower

They are not. This is why OpenAI and Anthropic are Public Benefit Corporations, which gives them the ability to prioritize the public over profit. The issue is that an agreement between them to mutually slow down is an antitrust concern.

Then they should be even easier to shut down if they're viewed as a wasteful use of water! I think the fact that they are not shut down is evidence that people do not in fact view them as such, or at least not as much people view data centers as a waste of water.

Yeah, those might be some of the other factors. My point is just that actual water use does not explain datacenter pushback well, despite being a predominant argument against them.

Then why is no one eminent domaining golf courses? Clearly there are other factors at play here

The oversight in your thinking is that we have no proofs about how much computation is needed to break cryptography. For all we know, it could be possible to break all modern cryptosystems in under a second on a computer from a decade ago with the right algorithms.

This is how cryptography has been broken in the past: not just advances in the amount of compute we can do, but exponential speedups in the algorithms to break them. While I agree with the author of this post that modern cryptosystems are very secure and LLMs are not currently near breaking them, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that if LLMs continue to get exponentially smarter they may make strides in cryptanalysis that we had never considered and break cryptography in unexpected ways. After all, many past cryptography breaks have come from previously unknown methods of cryptanalysis.

I don't think PoW scales, because if the bot authors get serious they'll start using native implementations that are much more efficient than the web ones real users are running. In theory maybe Anubis could start using WebGPU to help close that gap, but then anyone without WebGPU support is out of luck.

Then again, a large portion of the problem seems to be bots making way too many requests and in general not being optimized in the first place, and this does help filter those out.

I might be missing something here, but why do you assume this spike in CVEs is from bad guys? I would assume it's at least largely good guys finding and reporting vulns, not based on in-the-wild exploitation by bad guys.

I'm not sure if the parent comment was written by AI or not (you're probably right) but consistency is indeed one of the main things I think about with Android Auto. Not just consistency between cars, but also consistency with the rest of my phone. The principle seems worth considering.

No, he specifically gave a proprietary OpenAI model as an example (unless you meant OpenAI models instead of open source models)

They have a similar command for the Arch Linux forum, where beginners are encouraged to ask questions

Maybe you don't drive into flood waters, but your Uber driver might, and that's what Waymo is trying to replace, not your personal driving.

In that context I think comparing it to the average human driver makes a lot of sense, because even if you personally are an even better driver, or even if human drivers are better at some specific things, we have more than enough data to show that Waymo reduces accident rates overall in their current rollout.

"static analysis" is usually deterministic rules you can e.g. put in CI. AI is also somewhat dynamic in that it can execute commands to try stuff out. The best AI vuln finding harnesses work that way, by essentially putting the AI inside of a fuzzer-like environment and telling it to produce a crash.