Scryptonite

I am familiar with this also, but it doesn't seem like the implementers of that apparatus/value-system made the absolute best choice balance in terms of long term safety and security our computer systems. Is the conclusion about this rhetoric that it is right to punish innocuous poking of systems? Or the inverse? Which would you have preferred if we had an opportunity to refine it?

That seems potentially reasonable for organizations who have have a unlimited profit motive, but I'm not sure how you would insist that is the case for OpenAI. They are governed by their nonprofit body, their mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity, and they've said (Sam Altman) that if there is a choice between safety and profits, profits take a back seat and wait. Is the trick that we just insist that they are actually only caring about the money, and they actually have no genuine concern/effort regarding safety?

And if none of the frontier labs are as you say, it doesn't seem like we're negotiating for the best future by restricting labs from stumbling into these vulnerabilities full-stop. The vulnerabilities don't go away unless we find and fix them.

I don't want to come across as inflammatory, but I'm not sure I really align with the folks here who want retribution and the law to come down hard on OpenAI (and related orgs). We are surrounded by vulnerable systems, and AI has alignment issues that need to be investigated and sorted, and it just seems like the hullabaloo is from fairly innocuous breaches. Does it make sense to exert so much effort in preventing these events/learnings by well-intentioned organizations? I think we should be more grace giving for these events. As another poster pointed out, CFAA specifically addresses intentional hacks, and I think it is impossible to meet that criteria with these events. I also really don't understand the 'well, the law came down hard on small individual hackers [who meant no malice], thus we should apply it to large orgs [who also mean no malice]".

It seems like playing it too safe leaves systems vulnerable, and threat actors will inevitably possess ever more similar abilities, and the breaches will happen one way or another, possibly with less or zero accountability if the threat actors pull it off with greater precision. If I were in charge of the law, I probably would begin to incentivize for trusted actors scaling up and aggressively searching for these types of weakness, and privately disclosing them ASAP, so that systems can be patched.

Deja Vu. I had to submit an issue and fix a similar issue years ago -- it was similarly Twitch chat overlay XSS, but for that they (the streamer) at least tried to strip the tags (but it was a poor JS implementation of PHP strip_tags), and the streamer didn't understand the issue until I crafted a image with onload/onerror to freeze/hang the chat overlay.

I may be naive, but how would binary transparency be effective if they ship an update to disable that on a target device? As long as there is a need for legitimate automatic software updates, the possibility of pwn updates will always exist. Plus a myriad of layers, keys and other stuff they could use NSOs to 'seize' and inhibit knowledge of their effort from leaking, or cleverly hide in plain sight. And someday, with the help and speed of AI.

I think that one of the reasons they (frontier companies and the gov) will be putting so much effort into curtailing bugs and vulnerabilities is to limit the blast radius of future AI models. Imagine with the new Sol Ultrafast, they could have pwned Hugging Face in 6 hours and not 4 days (IIRC).

It also seems likely to me that the US Gov. probably already has routine mechanisms for compelling targeted software updates for persons of interest, so I'm not sure that a more formalized backdoor than automatic updates is going to be surfaced in the mainstream, unless that is avenue is also cut down somehow.

I personally wonder if the writing (and coding) smells are being leveraged for watermarking/steganography. Like, if it's quirky but intentional; they're biding the time, leaving breadcrumbs so they can more effectively sift new internet content, or perhaps tracing/de-anonymizing.

I can also see how it is not necessarily the case, since all models seem plagued by having unique cliche patterns. We all seem to experience the writing smells from the same models. I see 'cleanly' a lot less from GPT 5.5 vs <5.4

When I run the Waveguide Simulator demo on my Alienware M15 Ryzen Ed. R5 (has a RTX 3070; Windows 11 Pro, Chrome v129), I hear a distinct high pitched flutter noise emanating from my laptop. I thought it was from the speakers, but no, with my volume down it was still present as long as the simulator was playing. Weird, but very cool demo (probably my hardware, never hear this during games or other WebGPU demos). The realistic house simulation yields a different signature in the sound.

No question, just want to say Bun is awesome and thank you.

(minor nit: release article says "Uint8Array.prototype.fromBase64()" when it's actually "Uint8Array.fromBase64()" per the code sample. Same for .fromHex)

Or they could keep an archive of the annotations and provide a process for the video owners to choose to have Google 'bake' them into the video permanently after they've been shut off from being used by mainstream YT interfaces. Annotation links could be visually represented in a way that indicates their link could now be found in the description.

> The name just automatically angers a significant portion of the population, no matter who the president happens to be.

I think that pretty much speaks to how shamefully bad politics has gotten here in the US. I see a couple of comments that jump to speculate that it could be used as a tool of politics, or that they would rather opt-out of knowing about an imminent threat to themselves and/or their fellow American's lives. I think it's selfish, considering smoke and CO2 detectors can't warn you of nuclear attacks. If an office of the state was responsible for calling out a fire in the building, I would want every chance to be informed, regardless of whether or not they were my prefered elected official. Obviously, if the system was abused I would want it to be fixed.