Misc: I have over two years of full-time security consulting and blue team experience at NCC Group and Black Lantern Security. Also, I have two 0days and received CVEs under my name and a company research blog post to go along with it. Done contracting for FAANGs and found 0days in their products. Worked at IBM as a programmer too.
I'm eligible for a security clearance and willing to do government work. Already passed a FSP once, but was denied agency specific suitability.
Boundaries don't exist really in tech and especially with emails. I just filter out spam and block a good bit. People just ignore stuff now a days even people saying hi passing someone in the street (which I stopped doing)? My colleges spam filter catches a lot of them. Your email is presumably already in data dumps.
We don't use AI to help write code due to copyright concerns, it's against our policy. We obviously need to be very careful with what we're doing, and we can't be sure it hasn't seen Apple docs or RE'ed Apple binaries etc (which we have very careful clean-room policies on) in its training data. It also can't be guaranteed that the generated code is GPL+MIT compatible (as it may draw inspiration from other GPL only drivers in the same subsystems) but we wish to use GPL+MIT to enable BSD to take inspiration from the drivers.
Given that literally no one is enforcing this it seems like a moral rather than a business decision here no? Isn’t the risk here that your competitors, who have no such moral qualms, are just going to commit all sorts of blatant copyright infringement but it really doesn’t matter because no one is enforcing it?
I don't see open source as having "competitors". If someone wants to make a fork and use AI to write code (which I also think wouldn't be very useful, as there's no public documentation and everything needs to traced and RE-ed), they are welcome to. We're interested in upstreaming though, which means we need to make sure the origin of code and licence is all compatible and acceptable for mainline, and don't want to infringe on Apple's copyright (which they may enforce on a fork with less strict rules than ours).
I get “fear of being sued or decoupled from the upstream project” for sure. It definitely speaks to the sad state of affairs currently when companies at Apple’s scale simply operate with complete impunity at copyright law when it comes to using AI (you think Apple isn’t using stuff like Claude internally? I can 100% guarantee you they are) but are able to turn around and bully people who might dare to do the same
I’ll believe it when I see a court case of them going after someone for some ai generated slop and they win. Don’t see much evidence of that happening right now, or really ever since the advent of these things
Why would any serious project want to risk being the legal guinea pig for that experiment? And to what end? Everyone is pretty much in agreement that reusing code you're not licensed to use is bad for open source and just an all around shitty thing to do.
AI wouldn't work here. The OP task was converting one open source driver in to another one for FreeBSD. Since Mac doesn't have open source drivers to start with, a person still has to do the ground research. At least until you can somehow give the AI the ability to fully interact with the computer at the lowest levels and observe hardware connected to it.
Someone else here suggested having an AI write a filter driver to intercept hardware communications on Windows and try to write a driver based on that, I presume macOS can also be coerced into loading such a driver?
That approach could work, though it'll require a lot of brute-forcing from the AI and loading a lot of broken kernels to see if they work. Plus, if audio drivers are involved, you'd probably blow out the speakers at least once during testing.
Still, if you throw enough money at Claude, I think this approach is feasible to get things booting at the very least. The question then becomes how one would reverse-engineer the slop so human hands can patch things to work well afterwards, which may take as much time as having humans write the code/investigate hardware traces in the first place.
If I was someone on the run, then I would just get a fake license plate. They record plates on the interstates as well. Also, they have cameras and presumably can alert of a certain make and model + color car trailer on AI near a last seen area. Only way to bypass that is by swapping cars or getting a really generic popular car.
I still believe in Cameras. I have a comma.ai 3x and it works really well. Just get a thermal camera to deal with fog etc. Waymo has some of the same limitations with cameras that Comma and Tesla does.
There's no reason to believe in just cameras. Cameras are easily blinded by glare and have their efficacy drop dramatically when they get dirty. Having inexpensive lidar AND cameras is the best of both worlds. When it comes to safety and comfort, we shouldn't be trying to optimize for cost. If we figure out how to make cameras alone bulletproof in the future, great. But there's not where we're at today.
I think that supports most people’s viewpoint though. Visible light Cameras alone can ‘work’ but more sensors is of course better. You infrared example for instance.
The only reason not to have more sensors of different types is cost (equipment and processing costs). Those costs are coming down fast.
reply