This looks like an April Fools' joke. GPT-5 hasn't been officially announced by OpenAI, and there's no credible source supporting this claim. Spreading speculative or misleading information, even in jest, just muddies the waters further and makes it harder to find reliable news.
It very clearly is an April's fool joke. And a bad one (it suggests an unhealthy obsession) - but an evident one («I'll be retiring, now that AGI has been achieved ... [signed] // Vancouver, BC // April 1, 2025»).
(The post got delayed for almost an hour for technical reasons.)
I find it refreshing to see a plausible aprils fools in a sea of overly obvious content marketing/PR-approved ”fools”. (And yes I was fooled by this one for a minute.)
> Spreading speculative or misleading information, even in jest, just muddies the waters further and makes it harder to find reliable news.
Meh, a drop in the ocean. Especially in AI where even CEOs are vagueposting unverifiable claims on a daily basis.
It's a civil suit now, but has most likely been referred to the DOJ and US Attorney's Office for criminal investigation.
Best case scenario for Rippling: within 6 months the Deel board boots out the CFO & CEO. Shortly thereafter, several people involved on the U.S. side (and potentially their Irish spy) will be indicted for criminal violations of the Economic Espionage Act (notably Rippling has sued Deel for violating the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which provides for civil remedies). In their lawsuit, Rippling has classified their Sales and Marketing Strategy as "trade secrets" which is something that Deel will dispute given that marketing is inherently public. How that plays out criminally is another story, but chances are once the FBI digs into the Deel internal messages, they will find incriminating evidence. 1 or 2 of the Deel executives will plead guilty to conspiracy charges and get 1 year and 1 day. Deel, the corporation entity, will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement.
It's buried in the lawsuit, but Deel is implicated in sending payments overseas to Russia ostensibly in violation of international sanctions. In the Biden administration, this would have definitely interested a US Attorney, but not so much in this administration. Whether it has changed Rippling's strategy vis-à-vis best way to hurt Deel is another story. Perhaps they saw the possibility of Deel not facing punishment or press coverage over the Russia sanctions issue precisely because of the administration change and decided to play their other card: a spy.
Best case scenario for Deel: they covered their tracks internally by using auto-deleting Signal and theres no actual evidence of executives dictating what their alleged spy should be doing. They settle the lawsuit for several million dollars and politely apologize to Parker. Maybe there is a countersuit somewhere? Rippling has pursued this aggressively and confidently which hints that maybe there is some level of projection (i.e. they also had a spy in Deel). As for the criminal charges, if it gets to the point of an indictment of a C-level person, they will have lost, so Deel will need to hope someone low level was involved to pin it on.
You’re significantly underestimating the value of dox-style exploits. Author could have partnered with a black hat vendor who would offer (for example) $25 per lookup. Or they could’ve done bulk scraping of YouTube channels to get emails and sold the dataset.
It requires some legwork but they could’ve seen somewhere in the ballpark of 6 figures over 1 year if the exploit wasn’t patched.
Does that black-hat vendor already exist? Do they already sell the service of taking $25 to unmask Google users? What calculation does that vendor do about how many customers they'll get before Google notices? Does the exploit developer get a 50% cut? The black-hat vendor is taking all the risk; seems unlikely. Arranging this whole thing is work; finding the "black hat vendor" is work; not getting caught in the process is work; not getting screwed by your partner is work. You pencil out the numbers and this gets less and less plausible as a way to beat a $10,000 lump sum payment.
I think the reality though is just that there's literally no buyer for this.
You could sell the service yourself! I bet you could make a couple thousand bucks before you and your customers got indicted.
Caught for what? If someone sells information about a vulnerability, what law are they breaking? In most jurisdictions, unless you're dumb enough to ask questions about whom your selling to and have active knowledge you're assisting someone in breaking some law, selling to the black market is perfectly legal, at least so long as you pay your taxes.
If you're doing grey market, it's even more legal. If a dictatorship wants to unmask a critic for assassination, and one is selling this information to a government security agency, it's legal by definition.
If you sell information about a vulnerability to someone that you know specifically is going to use it to break the law, you are an accessory to that lawbreaking. Ask Stephen Watt how this plays out.
Please read my posts more carefully. Virtually every response is non-responsive to what I wrote:
I wrote: "unless you're dumb enough to ask questions about whom your selling to and have active knowledge you're assisting someone in breaking some law, selling to the black market is perfectly legal"
You wrote: "If you sell information about a vulnerability to someone that you know specifically is going to use it to break the law, you are an accessory to that lawbreaking"
That's the exact same thing.
You, likewise, didn't notice I was advocating for new statutes in a post above.
Someone gives you two kilos of cocaine, doesn’t tell you what’s in the box and tells you not to open it while you transport it across the border and when you get your the other side someone will pay you $20000.
You get caught by the DEA. Do you think it’s a valid defense “I didn’t ask what was in the box”?
Say the drug dealer you delivered it to got caught and then told authorities you delivered it to them, do you think you would have a valid defense?
Is that the right analogy? This sounds more like a free speech and free speech exceptions type of issue.
(Commenters keep moving the goalposts making for a complex thread where each node in the tree litigates a very different hypothetical situation. Ah HN!)
Similar to publishing say... the Anarchists Cookbook.
> unless you're dumb enough to ask questions about whom your selling to and have active knowledge you're assisting someone in breaking some law, selling to the black market is perfectly legal
This goes directly to the concept of “willful blindness”
His criminality is one matter, but the full weight of the Federal Government on him was an entirely separate matter. A federal prosecutor's job is to jail you regardless of whether it is for downloading a file from a server or for trafficking in humans, and they will come at you with the same vigor regardless of the crime. And nothing has changed about that.
Treating a human trafficker and someone who downloaded some files from a server the same is not in the job description of a prosecutor. What an absurd statement. It's very much the job of a prosecutor to make judgements about the severity of the crime and how to respond. And in this case, the prosecutor showed incredibly poor judgement. There wasn't even a particular reason why the case should go federal in the first place. The state prosecutor saw things very differently.
That is complete bullshit as evidenced by the federal criminal sitting president.... The ONLY time I ever see this argument is to try and paint over blatant police and state injustice and tyranny.
"A federal prosecutor's job is to jail you regardless of whether it is for downloading a file from a server or for trafficking in humans, and they will come at you with the same vigor regardless of the crime."
You have to be malicious to put forward this statement in the current environment. Or you are so propagandized you think it's true? Either one is very frightening
A severely weakened or dismantled US Military would encourage aggression by China against Taiwan, by North Korea against South Korea, (continued) aggression by Russia against their former Soviet states, and Iran against Israel and Saudi Arabia, leading the planet into a 3rd World War.
No you don't find it interesting. You view your complete lack of understanding of reality as a cudgel you can use to move the goalposts again. The nebulous "left" isn't for war. Anyone with a shred of morality wants to keep bigger nations from invading & occupying their smaller neighbors, especially when they're trade partners.
You're basically saying the US should have let Iraq take Kuwait. Or let China take Taiwan?
Any weaker democratic country can be taken by a stronger non-democratic country?
"Invasion" is part of war. If you go to war against a country this may often involve invading. Wars are hard to win if you're not there. If there is no threat of going to war you are essentially yielding the world to Russia and China and the likes.
This is not to say the US hasn't made a lot of mistakes but I'll take a US world order with mistakes over a Chinese or Russian world order.
There is no conventional war with China the US can win. Therefore, it's a big fucking waste of money to pretend we can with aircraft carriers and tanks. Nuclear weapons are relatively cheap. What the US military is good at is dropping bombs that cost the equivalent of houses onto primitive people living in tents.
The US invaded at least 2 countries and killed 2 million plus people in the last 25 years. Where were you then to stop the "invasion?"
I agree there are distinctions worth making. The above poster's comment was concise. I'm not sure they intended to conflate the two ideas.
It is easy to observe how under Obama, the allegedly anti-war candidate pivoted to supporting invasions. He forgive his predecessor's use of torture. He said incoming administrations shouldn't prosecute the previous. The only gift he didn't grant was the wish to invade Iran.
There is a sense that the defense, foreign policy and intelligence establishment will have their way regardless of electoral outcomes. Trump's first term was unique in that he did not start any new wars. Permanent Washington sought to actively sabotage his administration. Many infer a correlation between the two observations.
As for the assertion that, "If we don't spend x amount of dollars or intervene, the world will devolve into WWIII", I'm not sold on this doom. We might equally ask, If the US continues to misallocate resources via uncontrolled spending, will we have a functional economy capable of fielding a meaningful military response?
Obama let Syria devolve into a civil war with something like half a million dead and many millions of refugees because he was afraid to use the power of the USA to stabilize it. The consequences of which still impact us today. In general he messed up the Arab Spring completely.
He didn't "let it devolve into a civil war." He authorized the CIA to fund rebel groups which maintained and expanded the civil war.
What exactly do you suggest Obama should have done with "the power of the USA to stabilize it?" Invade? How would trying to 'fix' Syria be any different than trying to fix Iraq or Afghanistan?
I think he should have supported the more secular democratic elements against the regime. The regime was on the brink of falling and the outcome was probably going to have been not different than where we ended up. Instead Obama stood aside and let Assad and the Russians crush the opposition.
But that's just my opinion. My point being that "let's not intervene and let it play out" ended up with an amazingly bad outcome because the fear of a bad outcome from an intervention. Clearly a bad decision. A good decision, whatever that might have been, would have a better outcome. If the argument is that no better outcome was possible then that seems pretty wrong on the face of it.
Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g.) are fairly different places.
So the US has the moral right to install a western style gov into other countries?
How many times do we have to go down this road, tear apart countries, fuck them up more, and leave with everything in worse shape than before?
The US does not have the right to interfere and has proven over and over again that it will do all of the wrong things while trying to force other people with different ways of living and thinking to behave in a western way.
I guess the US gets to unilaterally decide what's right and wrong for the world, and kill however many people it takes to demonstrate the shining hope that is Western democracy!
I disagree with this logic and morality. There is a moral obligation to intervene when failing to intervene results in more harm. Naturally the type of intervention needs to be reasonable for the circumstances. But standing by and letting Assad and Putin drop barrel bombs on the population of Syria is clearly not the moral path.
By your logic if Japan hadn't attacked the US then the US should have just stood aside and let the Germans take Europe in WW-II.
WWII was an invasion into Europe, not a civil war.
Every time we've intervened in civil wars, the outcome has been bad, with one exception -- Korea.
The problems with your thinking are:
#1 It's how the neo-cons think and is the justification for all of the US terrorism in the past 40+ years.
#2 Who are you to say what the best outcome for another people are? Which people? What group in Syria will have this great outcome now that it's controlled by Isis?
#3 How many people did you get to kill to experiment with nation building? Do you really understand the internal power dynamics of countries like Syria, Iraq? Or are you practicing a form of Imperialism?
Here's an interesting take. Not my favorite source ideologically, nor are some of the citations. However, citing the WaPo (again, strong dislike) which has been favorable to the Neocons is something.
>Ultimately, whether one pallet drifted into ISIS hands by accident in a recent airdrop is a moot point. Billions in cash, weapons, equipment, and vehicles have already been intentionally supplied to the many groups that ISIS represents, as planned as early as 2007. ISIS is the purposeful creation of the United States in its pursuit of regional hegemony in the Middle East, and ISIS’ atrocities were predicted long before the first shots were fired in 2011 in the Syrian conflict, long before the term “Islamic State” went mainstream.
It's an interconnected world. All conflicts involve you. Pretty much all the current crop of wars are a direct result of the US getting "less involved". Putin's goals in Europe and the middle east. China's goals in Taiwan. All of these are a direct opposite of the "western world order". The thinking that the US can just withdraw from the world and it would become a peaceful free place is obviously failed. It's not restricted to one side in US politics either.
I think the US left is still generally anti-war. They hesitated to support Ukraine. They're locked into "why can't we all just get along" thinking. The right doesn't think we can get along but also doesn't want the US involved.
No rational, reasonable person is always pro war or always anti-war. You ought to understand that nuance is involved. Lots of liberals were opposed to the Iraq war that started in 2003 and now support fighting against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Your view is simplistic.
Okay, so answer the question: are all us presidents in the last 20 years, in your opinion, senile and incompetent? If so, what is the point of your comment in saying "When did you think the Russian aggression was initiated?"
Russian aggression technically started with the Annexation of Crimea in 2014 during President Obama's 2nd term.
While I do think Biden was fairly incompetent as a leader, the strategy adopted was probably the best option given the poor circumstances: wait and see if Ukraine could repel the initial invasion, then fund the resistance to draw Russia into a stalemate.
I really don't see how this invalidates the statement, regarding that VB's primary domain is rapid CRUD application development. Those applications usually don't use >2GBs of RAM, at least from what I've seen working on several old ones written in VB6, Delphi, PowerBuilder... Is a 64-bit Electron CRUD app that much more capable/better in getting the job done than a 32-bit VB6 equivalent? Both are merely an SQL client in the end.
