fdupress

No. This is not how this works.

As the silliest example of this: the Calculus of Inductive Constructions (the core calculus implemented in Lean) has a published proof of its soundness (that you cannot derive False in it). That proof can (probably, thanks to Gödel) not be formalized in Lean or any formal system of axioms weaker than Lean.

If what you were trying to do was define what it means for something to be a correct proof, then you must equally admit that there can't be a correct proof of the fact that Lean can't prove False. And if you find that world a happy world to live in while we delegate all concerns about truth to Lean, then I have an infinite hierarchy of monotonically growing bridges to sell you.

But hang on. None of this argument is about companies or people using AI being unfair in their practices. It is about companies and people training models and building AI products being unfair in their practice. (By forcing others to choose between adopting unscrupulous practices or dying.)

And that homes, feeds and waters you how?

The theorem doesn't exist in a vacuum. It talks about objects that must be formally defined. And if that formal definition (which is part of the API) is not immediately compatible with those others use, and every single theorem comes with its own definitions of the objects they're working on, you're going to be reinventing the wheel over and over again.

Replacing thought and curation with repeated automation is tech debt, pushed down to fundamental knowledge and understanding.

All this means in practice is that anyone who wants to use it for ads needs to get in touch with the devs and negotiate another set of licensing terms and an amount...

Astrology thanks you for your service.

This author disagrees with this take. They are setting a scene here, and explicitly saying that the Block story wasn't about AI at all a few paragraphs later.

If that "bait" caused you to stop reading despite the fact that you probably agree with the author's sentiment, it's not very good bait.

Seeing the server temperatures go up as this gets posted to HN is fun. I'm not sure his server agrees.

You seem to be missing the main point, which is that this is not about your point of view, but about the rightsholder's.

Pretty sure that's 20% of revenue, and I'm assuming that their business plan relies on skimming from settlements, not just taking donations. But they are also paying investigators and lawyers out of all of that.

And don't forget that Sony and Microsoft have compilers teams, working on specialised GCC and LLVM backends, and sometimes upstreaming general improvements.

The "keyed SHA-256" in key transparency's leaf_hash is ok in its current state, but limits future evolution (or presents a risk if that evolution is not done carefully): SHA-256 is subject to length extension.

I could not follow where the leaf_hash is used carefully enough to figure out exactly how dangerous this is in the broader context and taking future evolution into account. But it's clearly safe as it is used now because all expected inputs have the same length.

And since you apparently haven't seen, the abstract now includes the following note.

> Note: Update on April 18: Step 9 of the algorithm contains a bug, which I don’t know how to fix. See Section 3.5.9 (Page 37) for details. I sincerely thank Hongxun Wu and (independently) Thomas Vidick for finding the bug today. Now the claim of showing a polynomial time quantum algorithm for solving LWE with polynomial modulus-noise ratios does not hold. I leave the rest of the paper as it is (added a clarification of an operation in Step 8) as a hope that ideas like Complex Gaussian and windowed QFT may find other applications in quantum computation, or tackle LWE in other ways.

Self-response: the article does consider this (section 6), argues that the exceptions to restrictions on the use of publicly available data in GDPR are exactly in places where it makes sense to prevent AI usage, and further argues it makes sense to consider AI profiling a more severe breach because of the higher potential for harm.