bgwalter

[flagged]

Professors elsewhere can verify the proof, but not how it was obtained. My assumption was that the focus here is on how "AI" obtains the proof and not on whether it is correct. There is no way to reproduce this experiment in an unbiased, non-corporate, academic setting.

The FSF also ignored the SaaS revolution. They put out the AGPL but did not really market it or convert FSF projects to it.

DDT has been banned, cigarettes are all but banned, leaded fuel has been banned. Nuclear energy has been banned in Germany.

The industry wanted all of that and did not get its way after some time. You can ban "AI", make companies respect copyright. You can do all sorts of things.

Since "AI" can only plagiarize, countries that do the above will have an edge (I'm not talking about military applications that can still be allowed or should be regulated like in treaties for nuclear weapons).

It is everywhere now. Musk censors his X responses, Grok defends billionaires, the all-in podcast has only positive comments in suspiciously perfect English since a month or so. Previously they allowed criticism.

(And hardly anyone mentions Greenland on X.)

Modern cryptography should also not allow users to activate a sketchy linked device feature by scanning a QR code:

"Because linking an additional device typically requires scanning a quick-response (QR) code, threat actors have resorted to crafting malicious QR codes that, when scanned, will link a victim's account to an actor-controlled Signal instance."

This is a complete failure of the cryptosystem, worse than the issue of responding in plaintext. You can at least design an email client that simply refuses to send plaintext messages because PGP is modular.

Accidentally replying in plaintext is a user error, scanning a QR code is a user error.

Yet one system is declared secure (Signal), the other is declared insecure. Despite the fact that the QR code issue happened in a war zone, whereas I have not heard of a similar PGP fail in the real world.

People who do not wish to get killed may care.

How can I express in a non cynical way that I think LLMs are theft? Even if courts decide in the future that they think it is not, it is still a protected opinion in the same manner that some people do not recognize the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

I no longer respond if you use Simple Sabotage Field Manual tactics.

EDIT: The submission was flagged from the front page seconds after this reference.