openasocket

In orbit around Earth it does! In LEO it’s like 45 minutes of day and 45 minutes of night IIRC

I actually really disagree with this. If we want our representatives to reflect the will of the people, they need to have an accurate understanding of their electorate. When issues come up we need a way for the people to be heard, and polling is an important part of that.

I’m not necessarily disputing your point, but it’s very odd to downplay one source for potential bias, and then follow up with a study from the CATO Institute. Like, the CATO institute is openly a libertarian think tank founded by one of the Koch brothers.

I also think it’s unfair to look at just food prices. Housing and healthcare have bloomed massively.

I try to do this as well. It certainly feels better and makes me more confident that the code will make sense when it implements it. But I’ve found even with a very firm design an LLM will undermine it in the details. It will be convinced there is a particular way to do something, I will tell it not to do that and give it a complete alternative, and it will say it implemented it as written. And if you just look at the data structures and function signatures things look fine. But you look at the actual implementation details and it will try in some awkward way to implement things totally differently.

She was acquitted of several counts of wire fraud to defraud patients, but that does not mean harm was not found to customers. I haven’t been able to find the specific statute, but essentially the jury found that the prosecution didn’t prove all of the elements of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ll likely never know the details, jury deliberations are secret. But there was absolutely harm to patients. Balwani was also charged with patient fraud and WAS convicted on those counts.

But the question was how is this deceitful? Like, when someone says a documentary is deceitful, I assume there’s some important information the documentary didn’t include, or provided outright false information. I get that the documentary went in a direction you didn’t like. I just saw it this afternoon, and didn’t feel the same way, but I’m still processing it and I do find your opinion interesting. But unless you are saying this is, like, false advertising, I don’t see how that qualifies as deceitful.

It’s been a while since I studied complexity theory, but is that what Blums speed up theorem says? A quick google search suggests it states that there exist computable functions where there is no optimal program that computes it.

Like, there exist problems that have a lower bound of n time where algorithms can get arbitrarily close to O(n) complexity but there is no program that actually reaches it (there is one that runs in time O(n^{1.1}), one that runs in O(n^{1.01}), etc).

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t hard walls, it just means there are hard walls where every program’s runtime is > that wall, rather than >= that wall. But maybe I’m misunderstanding, or there are some corollaries I’m missing?

As an aside, as someone who studied more on the pure math side, Blums speed up theorem is rather intuitive. It looks like there might be a relatively elegant proof using topology. Blums speed up theorem is basically just a statement that the set of programs that implement a particular computable function doesn’t satisfy the greatest lower bound property. This is also the case for, for example, the set of rational numbers: there exist subsets of the rational numbers with a lower bound but not a greatest lower bound (like the set of all positive rational numbers q where q^2 >= 2). I’m hand waving, but I think in that same vein you can show that the set of programs under the topology of ordering by runtime is completely disconnected.

This is true for the general criminal conspiracy law, but be aware that an “overt act” doesn’t have to be an illegal act, just some action in furtherance of that crime. That can be purchasing a weapon, or scouting out a location. There may also be other laws in play depending on the specifics

Nukes are arguably ONLY useful in defense (and deterring another from attacking). Using nuclear weapons against an opponent that also has nuclear weapons will very likely lead to a nuclear exchange and the decimation of both countries. It’s suicide, and so no one is going to do it unless they have nothing left to lose. A nation under attack, facing an existential threat, and about to be overrun, is in exactly that circumstance.

And yeah, maybe the defending countries leader isn’t willing to end it all, and maybe try collaboration or partisan resistance. But if you were the attacking country, would you be willing to make that bet? Or would you hesitate?

A defense pact doesn’t always hold, though. Poland had a mutual defense pact with France and the UK in September 1939. And even if China were to aide the DPRK in a crisis, the DPRK would be the junior partner in that arrangement. In this scenario, if China is providing the lions share of manpower and weapons, they get to decide strategy, and dictate terms for war termination.

The DPRKs primary goal is preservation of the Kim regime above all else. That’s why the DPRK over the last 70+ years has focused on Juche, a principle of self-reliance. The vast majority of their weapon systems are of indigenous designs and manufacture. And why they have developed and deployed an independent nuclear deterrent.

I think you have to make a distinction between bugs and actual vulnerabilities. Therac-25 killed people, but I wouldn’t consider anything about it to be a security vulnerability. In my mind, the distinction between a bug and a vulnerability is that a bug is triggered during “normal” operations and can do anything. Whereas a vulnerability requires an adversary to “trigger” the vulnerability, and can do this to achieve some cognizable malicious goal. There’s probably some overlap on the edges; whether an issue in a library is a bug or a vulnerability may depend on how it is used, for example.

But I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that a bug isn’t necessarily less serious or less important than a vulnerability. A serious bug should be patched just as urgently as a serious vulnerability.

Not a lawyer but I have some knowledge of criminal law in general. There are a lot of details left out, but I do think she is likely to get a decent settlement. Though the Flock/AI part of it isn’t really the reason.

So, when you get arrested, you are required to be arraigned by a judge, and that judge has to find probable cause for arrest. That requires the prosecution to present evidence to the judge that a crime was committed and you probably did it. It’s a very low standard of proof, but it does have to happen. And then you are required to get bail, outside of very extreme cases. It depends on the jurisdiction, but all of that has to happen relatively quickly after arrest, like 24-72 hours. If she didn’t get bail until 13 days after the arrest, that’s a pretty cut and dry civil rights violation. If they didn’t get a probable cause determination in that time period, that’s a civil rights violation (unless they got an arrest warrant prior, which they might have in this case).

If she did get bail within a couple days, but it was just so much she couldn’t afford it, then it gets murkier. Because at that point thats not the police or the prosecutor, that’s the judge. Similarly, if the prosecutor presented the evidence they had to a judge for a probable cause determination (or the arrest warrant) and the judge granted it, that’s on the judge. You would have to show the prosecutor and/or police lied or presented inaccurate information in court. If not… at that point you have two independent branches of government screwing up.

Wait, was she not arraigned for 13 days? The article makes it sound like it wasn’t until 13 days after the arrest, and her lawyer presented evidence, that she was let out. That… that can’t be right. It varies from state to state, but generally you are required to be arraigned within 24-72 hours of arrest. And then they are required to give you bond (a no bond hold can happen but is very rare and I don’t think any jurisdiction allows that outside of murder).

Was she just given an extremely high bond she couldn’t afford? Not that that’s much better than no bond at all, but I’d really like to understand the details here.

One thing I find surprising is everyone is talking about the danger of an agent going rogue but not the danger of an agent getting hijacked. These companies are making this clusters with thousands of agents running at once, with frontier, often not-yet-released, quality models and massive computational and network resources. And these things are given access to whatever they want on the Internet. Even if that was restricted to read-only access to the Internet, that’s still exposing the agents to untrusted input. All it takes is some bad actor creating a website that attracts one of these agent swarms and doing prompt injection. Then your fancy AI cluster will start doing whatever that attacker wants. And the fact that we have multiple examples of these swarms trying to coordinate on random corners of the internet shows they are almost pre-disposed to it.

Now it feels like companies are treating these breakouts like a chance for PR. I don’t think that will change until their swarm gets corrupted by some random black hat to do en-masse spear phishing or something