ritwikgupta

VLMs are selectively blind — they decide how much to look at an image based on question framing (open-ended vs Yes/No vs MCQ), even when the same visual reasoning is required.

This is about changing the way FedRAMP accreditation is done for any cloud service, like Box (or a new SaaS that you may create tomorrow). The FedRAMP process requires you go through a certain set of audits, meet a certain set of standards, etc., in order to be approved to host CUI (IL4/5) or SECRET (IL6) information.

Normally this can take a lot of time and monetary investment. On one hand, these processes encode cybersecurity best practices. On another hand, it keeps new companies out of the market.

It seems this effort is doing away with a lot of those processes. I hope the level of compliance stays the same.

Public trust is not a security clearance; it is simply a more involved background check. A security clearance is only granted after a T3/T5 investigation and adjudication of the request. The SF312 NDA signed in order to receive your clearance does not expire.

With the recent veto of SB 1047, it becomes even more important to ask why these proposed policies are lacking. We suggest that all modern AI regulations are overly broad and flawed because they miss the most important part of AI capabilities: data.

Do you have an example of this workflow? Are you developing outside of XCode on a non-macOS platform in Swift and then essentially compiling and packaging using GitHub Actions?

Fascinating. The massive variance in the percentage of chickens that prefer roosting off the ground is interesting. I wonder what environmental pressures drives this decision.

1. The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial.

2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts.

Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology.

If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.

You are grossly under-estimating the ability of the FBI’s cyber forensics teams to discern whether or not data was planted maliciously or produced overtly, as well as under-estimating the ability of the courts and a jury to understand when someone is willingly producing CSAM versus accidentally being in possession.

This prosecution is the first of its kind for the DOJ. It is highly unlikely that they would pick this case to take to trial if there was not certainty about the actions the perpetrator engaged in.