kloop

I think OP's point is that, if the attacker already has root, they haven't gained any new capabilities from the CVE. They could just do whatever they wanted much more directly. Therefore, the inherent risk seems fairly low.

But they do that via things in their control. For example, banks that don't follow FATCA cannot access the US banking system. It's rare for the US to send law enforcement to banks that don't comply

The UK would have been perfectly justified in saying 4chan can't access any of their systems.

He's the "doing ui in c to piss of react devs" guy, right?

Because human review is a serious bottleneck and optimizing something that isn't the bottleneck isn't helpful

Which makes sense.

In a conversation about code, the most likely answer is often some comment about backwards compatibility.

In a conversation about a legacy enterprise app, the most likely answer is often going completely insane

I still think this is because, on a new release, it works on some prompts the previous ones did badly at, because new weights do well on a different set of prompts.

Then after a few days you notice the prompts that it does badly on that the old ones did fine with and everyone is convinced there's a regression when it's just a different part of prompt space

I'd put Kevlin Henney up there with him. His talk on 1968 alone is pretty amazing

Sure, but the new patterns are several years old at this point.

Not adapting is a choice

So that you can name a section of code without polluting the namespace.

It's training data might have a ton of examples of people hurrying and screwing more after being yelled at

Yeah, but that capture is usually just hosted spark usage.

The AI usage has mostly been getting it to explain error messages

> “The source described leading AI labs or their allies approaching the administration every 3-5 months with an idea to ban open-source models.”

That's going to hit first amendment grounds pretty quick, the same way that software in general did.

The modern version of the decss flag will be a character that says "I think good weights are {...weights go here...}"

They could, however, ban any payment to a chinese entity, or any entity owned by a chinese entity for inference/ai services/etc

It does make it correct in the reality sense

If someone says something happens and the code says something else, the code wins.

The article mentions that the "pranksterish" groups who took psychedelics weathered it just fine. They didn't have an expectation to disappoint. Irreverence seems to be just as good

It does sound like the opposite a bit, it sounds like attempting to create a spiritual practice, or assign spiritual significance at all was what did him in

Give how default gcc and clang are, along with the recommendation to update the standard instead of gcc and clang, it sounds like the standard is noncompliant with standard C++

Standard in the sense of commonly used or supplied