Every point in that post has been discussed at length other places, some of which is in the HN thread the author mentions. And the discussions make it clear that the points being made are not seeing the problem - not that there isn't a problem.
Passkeys have benefits - but they also have problems. Many people just don't think the benefits are worth the problems. And many people are afraid that sites will just stop accepting passwords in favor of passkeys, leaving people worse off.
> Even before the internet, a determined person could learn about anything at a library. It's been a long time since a university has been strictly necessary for that
That completely overlooks some things
- Most people are _not_ that determined and need something to help them stay focused and committed to your goals.
- Learning the material is only one part - having someone guide you through _what_ to learn is very beneficial
- Taking time off life (work, etc) in order to do that learning isn't that easy. "Going to college" is a lot easier to explain/fund then "taking some me time for 3 years"
If you think the current administration hasn't pushed this so far beyond, and so much faster, what any previous administration has done - since maybe the red scare - I don't have a bridge to sell you. Because honestly, you shouldn't be anywhere near anything involving public welfare.
> The number of warrantless device searches at the border and the significant invasion of privacy they represent is only increasing. In Fiscal Year 2022, CBP conducted an all-time high of 45,499 device searches.
I really doubt the previous administration was trying to deprive people of their liberty based on their political beliefs. The current administration very clearly is. I can't speak to any changes in the phone search policy, but your right to freedom of expression is gone at the federal level.
Both things are simultaneously possible:
* This admin is actively hostile in a specific way (eg towards immigrants)
* All govts have been hostile for a (very) hot minute (see: patriot act, snowden stuff that happened across different presidents).
And a bonus:
* This is not a new thing, a is related to why people occasionally talk about "the swamp"/the "deep state"/"3 letter agencies". NSA has self interest to stay alive regardless of admin.
And this aspect (of "some parts of the govt aren't really affected by the elected reps) isn't a new thing at all either - see: Yes (Prime) Minister.
There have been discussions on HN about this topic across administrations. That is not to say that there aren’t differences in degree, but the government has long maintained that it has special rights to conduct searches at the border that would not be permitted elsewhere.
Given that travel hadn't recovered from covid in 2022, that 45k to 55k increase mean even less.
Has the % of people searched actually decreased?
I don't trust the current U.S. gov (or any U.S. gov, really), but the figure isn't actually increasing in a significant way. The US. remain as unwelcoming to visitors as they have been since 2001. Nothing to see in this report.
I’d look for a change in slope. A permanent change that adversely affected tourism would decrease the slope, but maybe not so much as to make it negative.
Between 1995 and 2015 (capturing data before and after 2001) the US's change in tourism increased at a faster rate than France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Austria, and the UK. Spain may have increased at a slightly faster pace, but it's close.
This is meaningless without a denominator. How much has international tourism increased in those years? What percentage of international tourists visited the US before and after 2001?
Well they did but I would be willing to bet that their successors will not remove laws allowing this. They may relieve it little bit but why would they remove such potentially valuable tool?
Government always want to have as much control as it can possibly acquire.
Many of us have been warning that the systems built by presidents before Trump, would be abused by a president like Trump, and here we are. I think the critics of the system are the ones with public welfare in mind and ask you to take a deep breath.
GP is right. In equating a very bad thing and a moderately bad thing you only bring attention away from the very bad thing. This isn't theoretical - it's an empirical observation.
1. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil
2. They are not making models with the intent that those models act in ways that are evil - But the way they are making the models results in the models acting in ways that are evil
3. They want to act evilly and making the models is a way to do that
4. The way they are making the models is an act of evil (this isn't an interpretation of the sentence, just kind of closing the grouping of situations)
I would argue that
- 1 & 3 are very likely not true
- 2 & 4 are entirely reasonable interpretations of the situation
If you act in a way to bring benefit to yourself with the result of considerable harm to others, especially if it's clear you just don't care if others are harmed - then that's a sign you're probably a bad person.
> The models were given instructions to get answers by any means in a loose test harness, not to steal stuff, moreover, they're not 'learning from OAI staff'.
If you equip someone with the tools to do harm and then tell it to accomplish a goal "by any means necessary", especially someone you KNOW has no real concept of ethical behavior... then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way.
If it was a crime boss telling their enforcer "by any means necessary", we would all know exactly what that means. And we should all know what it means here, too.
".. then you are telling it that it is acceptable to steal, kill, or whatever else. I honestly cannot how it can be seen any other way."
This is the hyperble I am referring to.
If you 'honestly can't see it any other way' then maybe consider stepping outside to think how to ground those thoughts a bit.
The AI is not obviously instructed to 'commit acts of violence' and it obviously has guidelines.
By 'whatever means' would imply, things like 'creative collaboration, using novel research, experiments' etc.
It was setup in a harness that was weak - I think it's fair to maybe question the strength of that harness, and the oversight, but that's a different question.
It was an agent that broke through some networking/containerization, it's not 'murder and violence on the streets' for gosh sakes.
"And we should all know what it means here, too."
No - this is a delusion, resulting from lack of context, and creative projection, and possibly a lack of exposure to real world business conditions.
It's fully appropriate to be cynical, but in a way that makes sense, and is consistent with reality.
This is a lab experiment that leaked, not some mafia activity.
Given how many people seem unsurprised by what happened, and the number of stories of AIs "escaping" their bounds - I don't think it's reasonable to think that any competent person would think that telling an AI "by any means necessary" would limit it to playing nicely.
I'll admit that this doesn't _need_ to be the result of maliciousness.
But that means the possible explanations are maliciousness or incompetency.
I don't know that we want people with _either_ of those traits in the positions they are in.
Passkeys have benefits - but they also have problems. Many people just don't think the benefits are worth the problems. And many people are afraid that sites will just stop accepting passwords in favor of passkeys, leaving people worse off.
reply