I think that you missed the point and should have read until "That’s exactly how we feed codebases to AI"... ;-)
Actually, the article shows that feed an AI with "structured" source code files instead of just "flat full set" files allow the LLM to give better insights
Not so much, which is precisely why China does ban Twitter and Facebook. I’d love to have a detente where every country has a permissive policy towards social media apps and accepts some degree of soft power from it, but that’s not where we’re at.
The US wants to be much more like a wartime US, in the face of its most intense completion since WWII. I think most Americans have no conception of what WWII era US censorship and propaganda looked like, but it looked a lot like modern peacetime China. TikTok is being treated more gently than Tokyo Rose.
Of course things will not go that far domestically... unless the shooting starts.
X is a fine example of a platform tuned to push propaganda, which helped get Trump elected. I wouldn't be shocked if X gets banned on EU for example, hopefully, they will set the example.
Actually, focusing on "engagement" is already showing that the game is lost and that the we're seing another Twitter clone... :-(
Because "engagement" is about "money" and "ad" and "sponsor" and "business"... and not about anything close to "social" or "society" or "human". So, sooner or later (but most probably "sooner"), you'll see clickbait and other usual tricks to grow up "engagement"... and any interesting post will disappear
So I won't even matter to create an account or have a look. I'll wait for the next one, or the next next one... hoping some people will understand that quality content is not measured by some kind of "engagement"
EDITED: if you matter enough to downvote, at least explain WHY you think I'm wrong ;-)
1. Bluesky has stated they have no intention to add ads. Subscriptions are apparently coming soon
2. ATProto makes algorithms pluggable. Anyone can develop on, users can sub to those of their choosing, making switching easy should one become bad. It means there can be real feed competition without needing to move networks or apps. Same for moderation, individual choice and control is central to the design
The problem is not "ads" per se... it's engagement focus
Ads or clickbait posts or filtering/ordering algorithms are just some consequences of engagement focus (also called "attention economy" because what matters is... well... attention... measured by "engagement")
As long as focus is on "engagement" and not on "quality content", you'll have some Twitter/Facebook/Tiktok/... clone.
Subscriptions COULD shift the focus on quality (because if people are convinced that you provide quality content, they might pay for it) but it requires (as shown for a long time) at least :
- easy way to discover real quality content (a bit like Wikipedia in a way)
- easy way to pay once to subscribe to different providers. That's the same old problem for the newspapers: people dont want to pay a yearly subscription - or even a newspaper issue - to read once a single article. They MAY pay a subscription if they can read any article in any newspaper (in a big bag of newspaper). Then this revenue has to be redistributed among the different newspapers...
Actually, it shows the real problem about education... and what education is for!
Education is not a way to memorize a lot of knowledge, but a way to train your brain to recognize patterns and to learn. Obviously you need some knowledges too, but you generally dont need to be an expert, only to have "basic" knowledges.
Studying different domains allow to learn some different knowledges but also to learn new way of thinking.
For example : geography allows you to understand geopolitic and often sociology and history. And urban city design. And war strategy. And architecture...
So, when students are using LLM (and it's worst for children), they're missing on training their brain (yes... they get dumber) and learning basic human knowledge (so more prone to any fake news, even the most obvious)
> Most crates I use - like human-size or serde don't need any special capabilities to work. So we don't need to worry so much about their authors "turning evil" and adding malicious code to our software
well... :-(
Actually, it's obvious that some authors might "turn evil" dumbly, by abusing some kind of priviledged permissions. By chance, these kinds of supply-chain risks are "easily" identified because
1) the permissions are an "easy" risk indicator, so you can priorize either to pin the version library (after validating it) or validate the new version
2) not so many libraries will use these permissions so you "have time" to focus on them
3) in these libraries, the permissions will tell you what system call/bad effects is possible, so will allow you to narrow even more the scope of investigation
So, IMHO, permissions are not really the end of all but only a tiny step.
The real problem is "how can human-size be used to subvert the program ?" For example: what is happening if the returned size "forget" or "add" 100 bytes to files bigger than 1 KB ? As a remininder, STUXNET was about some speed a tiny bit faster than planned and shown...
Author here. Even if the permission system needs to be explicitly enabled and most people don't enable it, that would still have the effect of adding an early warning system for the entire rust ecosystem.
> The real problem is "how can human-size be used to subvert the program ?" For example: what is happening if the returned size "forget" or "add" 100 bytes to files bigger than 1 KB ? As a remininder, STUXNET was about some speed a tiny bit faster than planned and shown...
I read this argument in a similar vein to the argument against rust's unsafe blocks. "Look, C code will always need some amount of unsafe. So why bother sandboxing it?"
But in practice, having explicit unsafe blocks has been a massive win for safety in the language. You can opt out of it at any time - but most people never need to!
A 90% solution doesn't solve the problem entirely. But it does solve 90% of the problem. And thats pretty bloody good if you ask me! Sure - my safe rust decompression library could still maliciously inject code in files that it decompresses. But having checks like this would still reduce the security surface area by a huge amount.
Less implicit trust in random crate authors is a good thing. I don't want thousands of crate authors to be allowed to execute totally arbitrary code on my machine! The current situation is ridiculous.
Is there a known ratio of crates that use unsafe to ones that don't? It feels like most nontrivial crates would often need some unsafe. But a system like this might create a scenario where crates offload some of their unsafe code into separate crates so they need updating less frequently (Much like the blah-sys versus blah crates).
I suppose this depends on your definition of "nontrivial", but I don't think most would, unless you count the fact that some stuff in std is implemented with unsafe under the hood. The only times I've ever needed to use unsafe Rust code in 5~ years of writing it professionally was for interfacing with a vendor-specific C library, and that was only for the wrapper around it; the rest of the code didn't need to use unsafe.
Yes I'm probably biased towards seeing more unsafe as a deal with a lot of wrapper libs (crates which in turn have -sys crates and so on). Looking at the dependency graph, if I use 10 deps directly and 5 have unsafe then that might be 50% of the direct dependencies, but probably just a small fraction of the total including transitive.
I think that you can delete files from safe code, but safe as it won't crash or deadlock (but may panic or trigger bugs on unsafe code).
It'd be good to track capabilities needed by libraries, so similarly to unsafe code, risky portions needing careful review are constrained and highlighted in some way.
IMHO, the "social web" was "forums" (think "phpBB" for example) and the "webrings", that enable to find other website/forums like the one you were on. It was quite usual to see some people refering to other forums in their comments, so it was a way to share a community of forums.
Even if there was no "single personal page", it was quite usual to wander in the same forums on some specifics topics (like "reverse engineering" or "wargames") and people usually used the same username... so you could "follow" the same people in differents forums
Then, later, people interests started to be more egoistic, sliding from "what" to "who", and the era of (micro-)blogging started : everybody wanted its own website to share its own view and be the superstar of the day...
Web 2.0 was the consecration as it allowed "comments" under blog posts (and so called "community" knowledge). Facebook, MySpace & consort allowed people without any technical knowedge or technical resources to have their own "profile page" and the rest is history
PS: yeah... I still miss the 90's-95's, when the web was full of "hackers", "free spirits", having already lived a long and rich life, and eager to share to the youngest generation...
Something always bothered me: why using "sketch-like hand-drawn pencil" like style for that kind of tools ?
I understand that "wireframing" is some kind of "brainstorming" tool, so it is used with a pencil and a whiteboard in a meeting room and require to draw/erase fast iteratively... so it's the "right" tool for this job...
But as soon as you use a computer instead of a pencil, why not have a "realistic" and "clean" look instead of this kind of quick-and-dirty sketch-like style? It's an honest question
Is it because designers are most used to this style? Is it because it make more clearly appear the essential points (for example: a list) and avoid discussion like "is this text exactly in this color ?"
The reason that I've heard used repeatedly is that a shocking percentage of folks who aren't Technology producers can't separate visual quality from "doneness" of a project. If you show some business folks something that looks like it works, they'll mentally update the project to "Nearly done!" and then everything else after that becomes "Unreasonable delays."
Yes. This is precisely it. There aren’t two sides to this, just people that haven’t themselves experienced this absolutely inevitability. These sorts of inexact-looking tools are worth their weight in gold for that reason alone.
I presented a wireframe to a curator at The Science Museum once years ago - even after lots of "please bear in mind this is just a prototype" type disclaimers, his first response was "surely it'll have more colour and pictures than this?".
I have had prospective clients do it from non-interactive graphic mock-ups -- just pictures! They assumed that was the hard part and just "wiring up the buttons" would be a short simple task. Those were frustrating discussions.
In this particular case, there were user accounts, listings of items per user, calculators of various sort, multiple API integrations, and on and on. They understood by the end of the discussion, but seeing an image of something that looked complete was enough to trick their mind into thinking a lot of development work had occurred when, in fact, none had occurred. Only preliminary graphic design had occurred. This was earlier in my career. I typically use wire-frames or zoomed-in detail images now along with starting the discussion by letting them know that these are just graphic ideas, there has been no development yet, we are just at the stage that we want to be sure we are matching their vision.
But if you want reasonable portability of the interface across different devices, and scale, and connection quality there's more to do.
Even just getting an interface that responds cleanly to resizing can be trickier than it looks because what is important changes as aspect and scale change. How you present things may categorically change.
And this doesn't even start on talking about how to get the backend to where it matches the implied functionality of the front end.
This is unfortunately very true. You also have to be very careful with word/phrase choice in discussion about future work: people often hear “what we could do, is…” as “there is already a full feature that allows you to configure the tool to do…”.
You really have to drill home that ideas and possibilities are just that, and not concrete features that they could start using tomorrow.
Why is this unfortunate? If it weren’t true and people could separate the things, would we really be better off?
I ask because this guy s a common lament, but I’ve never figured out why. It shouldn’t be a surprise or (to me) disappointment that the fidelity of a communication also carries signal about the status.
Unfortunate because it's relatively easy now to mock-up the pretty part well enough to be mistaken for the real thing. Which people who don't have experience in this field then do, and get often get confused or upset even.
Example of this from another industry: working in manufacturing, a client wouldn't listen to our explanations about why their part wasn't ready to be molded in plastic. (lot's of design issues that would make it impossible to get out of the mold or lead to extreme cosmetic imperfections). To prove their point that their part designs were ready, they held up a 3d print of their part and said, "See? It's right here! You just have to do this!" This led to a half hour of answering questions before they started to understand that the two fabrication processes were very different and had different requirements.
I think the unfortunate part is really the time you have to sink into helping someone understand that's often unpaid, in my experience.
The problem is that it is easy to give one part of the communication, the visual, more fidelity than the rest, but that part is what people laugh into no matter what you communicate by other means (verbal, written).
So we, unfortunately, have to make effort to dumb down, or at least carefully manage, the fidelity of that part.
There is definitely this, but also: if it looks "refined", people start getting attached to what they see, and it affects how they react to the final product.
Any change from that haphazard throwaway with nice colors is suddenly a change they have opinions about, because it feels like a change.
If you show them something that's obviously not what will ship, they don't get as attached.
---
This is also partly a "most people don't understand the design process" thing, and just how much reworking and restarting is generally necessary to get an actually-good end result. If they see hundreds of mockups (or even sketches), they'll wonder why you haven't made hundreds of products, rather than those being merely tools used to think along the way.
Actually I don't think "technology producers" are entirely excluded from this bias either. I've assumed more complexity than there was in reality (possibly due to my background in infrastructure and backend), but other developers I've worked with certainly fall more into the trap of "there's a UI? now it's just a simple matter of CRUD."
While this is likely true for designs, I believe there's more to it. I switched from straight to cartoon lines for my architecture / planning diagrams and suddenly started getting more unprompted comments about how they're clear and approachable.
Personally I also prefer the hand-drawn style, but can't put my finger on why. There's something about the uneven lines filling out the space better, while still defining the shapes well.
I think you're pointing to the positive case of the same effect, which is that people use "hints" from the level of detail of something to determine the level at which they ought to inspect something.
Lower fidelity puts the viewer in a more conceptual mode of assessment, and there they can more easily perceive the clearness/approachability of your concepts.
If everything is either an obvious sketch, or pixel perfect you can get decent feedback, but a design that is just a little off in jarring ways will distract people from the functionality or design intention.
A) Make it easier to focus on the core aspects of the problems instead of obsessing with details (applies to both designers and "reviewers")
B) An "unfinished" messy design is an invitation for critical feedback. If you give people something that looks too polished, they might be afraid that they'll break it, that they don't understand it, that they can't give feedback that is "good enough".
In short: if it looks like a toy people will play with it.
* C) The reason many of these tools look like Balsamiq has more to do with the tech of the late 00s/early 10s. This specific style of vector art was pretty easy to achieve in Flash.
This style says ‘it's a draft’ ‘it's an idea’. This is very important for communication within the team. It also allows you to concentrate on the essential points and not on the details (I don't like this font, the centring isn't perfect, etc.).
To my great surprise, even for training courses, this style encourages questions and interaction with the students. There's a whiteboard feel to it which suggests that the presentation isn't set in stone.
Right. The more polished a rendering is, the more people are emotionally attached to it. Keeping it rough enables brainstorming, whatifs, etc.
Ages ago, when CAD was new, architects would show customers tracings (of plots). For all the same reasons.
The practice was so common that my buddy (also an architect) created a "hand plot" driver for AutoCAD. "Messy" hand drawn look instead of precise line work. The driver was huge popular.
If I draw something in balsamiq, I’m typically “forgiven” for how basic the design looks. Try and do the same in let’s say MS paint and you could be called unprofessional and lazy. But this style seems to communicate strongly that this is a basic barebones wireframe.
I usually dont use wireframes like this but one benefit is that it clearly communicates "this is NOT a finished design". Way to many times you bring a figma/mvp to get feedback on the "big picture" like the user flow etc but people get stuck on "the margin on that box is wrong" or "can we use another font?" when they see a design that looks like a "finished" product. You dont have that issue with wireframes.
One of the most valuable things you can do with early prototypes is have prospective users try them, to see whether they're understandable and meet users' needs. When a prototype looks unfinished, users understand that it can be changed, and you can collaborate with them and explore ideas for making the prototype better.
Sometimes the pixel perfect details don't matter for a use case, so why set the hi-fi expectation for both the designer and developer. The designer can get caught up in choosing colors and pixel-perfect layout, and similarly the developer implementing on that design might unnecessary time attempting to match the hi-fi design.
Exactly. I feel the same way. After lot of research, I settled on Whimsical for doing mockups/wireframes. Good Balance between Simplicity and Power. Only complain is clickable prototyping which is not available. If they add that, I would never leave Whimsical for prototyping.
Because the final product will require tons of details to have been thought through, which can quickly become bike-shedding derailments. How many times have you had to say “this is just example styling—we can tweak it later”? The hand drawn sketch conveys that implicitly.
> The Napkin Look & Feel is a pluggable Java look and feel that looks like it was scrawled on a napkin. You can use it to make provisional work actually look provisional, or just for fun. It is released under a BSD-style license
> The idea is to try to develop a look and feel that can be used in Java applications that looks informal and provisional, yet be fully functional for development. Often when people see a GUI mock-up, or a complete GUI without full functionality, they assume that the code behind it is working. While this can be used to sleazy advantage, it can also convince people who ought to know better (like your managers) that you are already done when you have just barely begun, or when only parts are complete. No matter how much you speak to their rational side, the emotional response still says "Done!". Which after a while leads to a later question: "That was done months ago! What are they doing? Playing Quake?" A good article on this is Joel on Software's “The Iceberg Secret, Revealed”.
... and that's the place that I remember where to find this blog post:
> When we show a work-in-progress (like an alpha release) to the public, press, a client, or boss... we're setting their expectations. And we can do it one of three ways: dazzle them with a polished mock-up, show them something that matches the reality of the project status, or stress them out by showing almost nothing and asking them to take it "on faith" that you're on track.
> The bottom line: How 'done' something looks should match how 'done' something is.
> Every software developer has experienced this many times in their career. But desktop publishing tools lead to the same headache for tech writers--if you show someone a rough draft that's perfectly fonted and formatted, they see it as more done than you'd like. We need a match between where we are and where others perceive we are.
I had a project where I grabbed the stylesheet and header from another similar project while working on it... and spent a week discussing with management about what color blue it should be when the questions I needed answering were "does this page flow make sense?"
(to be honest, I find this "pencil-like" look a bit like MS Comics for fonts, ugly and unprofessional... so I really don't understand why designer tool use it so much)
Anybody who's ever been in a few meetings that try to put together stakeholders, designers, and developers, know how it will inevitably descend in painful back and forth about a shade of hue or an icon size. People get distracted by colors and graphics, and fail to provide actual feedback on functionality and layouting - which are the hardest bits to change later.
The point of this style is to communicate that it's a rough draft, so that people focus on the essential implementation and functionality requirements, the hard stuff. It's easy to give it a lick of paint later. (It also keeps expectations low, so that the final result will feel like you're overdelivering. But that's just bonus.)
For those "downvoting" this comment, please: I wrote it right after my initial post, before any answer, to make my initial post clearer. I certainly should have added this to the main post.
Now that I have all these answers, I understand better. But cant delete or modify this comment. So sadly it's here for eternity :-(
Thanks a lot for your insightfull comments to the original post. Actually, I now think that I will use these method to help getting more feedback from users
BTW, the video show him playing with and against BOTS (that are notoriously weak in CS2), not with/against other human players (where he would stand no chance - and no fun - even against beginning players)
Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ?
Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
And if a Court find that X doesn't respect the country law, why should X be seen as a "free speech" leader and not just as an illegal company ?
For me, Musk attitude is just plain bullying as usual, and I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
The judge has a history of actual censorship, here's a case that the NYT wrote about, where he got a Brazilian magazine's news article deleted for "fake news" for writing a true article about the official who promoted him, as soon as he got powers to censor without due process or checks and balances.
> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017.
> In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”
> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.
That article is from 2022 but has a lot of details of overreach by the judge, like search raids on the homes of businessman who just happened to be in a group chat where someone was joking about a coup.
> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?
That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.
I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.
The US banns a lot of stuff too, from porn to sharing songs.
A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today.
I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.
You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?
America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits
Child pornography is not speech. Copyrights also aren't related to free speech as far as I'm aware, that's intellectual property law.
I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.
Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.
So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.
I do personally disagree with this definition. Free speech was always intended to protect the right to say whatever you want. The expansion of what falls under free speech is dangerous and, as made clear today, leads to arguments that erode what was originally meant to be a fundamental right.
I've never actually understood the difference, curious if you can help fill in a few blanks for me.
How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?
It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.
You are free to express your opinions ("I don't like immigrants from Africa"), but you are not free to choose any manner of speech, as there's restrictions in certain areas, such as hate speech or inciting violence ("Kill the N-words!")
It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.
Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?
Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.
Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law
In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly
However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).
"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)
This has always been a huge hangup for me with laws in general. If a law isn't clearly spelled out enough to be able to know when I would be in the wrong before I act (or speak), I'm effectively at the whims of the legal system and I can't avoid it.
The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.
It certainly is a lot more ambiguous than absolute free speech, yes. I think your example would still count as hate speech inciting violence against black people. The Nazi one I'm not sure off the top of my head, to be honest.
> I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)
No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.
If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.
As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].
Is X a bralizian institution ? I don't think so... so X has no right to oppose this decision !
If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People. But X is not a brazilian citizen AFAIK... so it either follow the rules, leave the country or is illegal.
Moreover, when Starlink refuse to respect a court order, Starlink is although a problem (be it another Musk property or not)
People can do whatever they want. They just need to accept the consequences.
I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them. I chose to accept that risk because I find this situation to appalling to keep quiet about it. This wasn't a choice I made lightly. My own parents who lived through last century's military dictatorship recognized the signs and asked me to stop commenting online. They feared this guy might order my arrest and generally ruin my life. Their fears are not unfounded.
So I respect Elon Musk for this utterly political move. He accepted the consequences and did something few others would do. I can respect that. I have no doubt he has hidden self-serving reasons behind this move but that's an analysis for another day. Right now I'm just interested in the political ramifications this will have for my nation.
> I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them
My brother in Christ. There is ZERO chance of this to happen for this kind of comment and to me It only tells me you need to distance yourself a bit from this. Focus on something positive for a week. You're going down a path that is so far outside the realm of possibilities at this time that's worrisome.
Unfortunately HN doesn't allow for deleting an account or old comments and it would be mostly pointless anyway because 3rd parties will archive them. While the probability of information posted here reaching Moraes is virtually zero it is very possibly in the future this information will be analyzed by large teams or automated systems and could lead to issues with authority. The future is unpredictable and this is not without precedent in countries like China and Russia. Even in Brazil I believe there are cases where people where arrested or at least fined for liking or sharing a post.
I wouldn't say there's a zero chance. The judge has gone after YouTubers and journalists before. I know that at least some of them fled to the USA to escape his persecution. There's one journalist in particular that the judge hates so much he was mentioned in those WhatsApp message leaks. Judge and his people apparently think the USA is being "difficult" for not giving the guy up.
There are a bunch of countries calling them selves democratic in name but are anything but that in reality. If in France in the future people democratically decide racism apology is fine, you would have no problem with that?
Huh. Maybe you should take your own advice and mind France's business and leave Brazil's and Musk's alone. God knows your country needs it.
Tangential, but I stopped being upset about asinine takes on free speech and government when I realized that the overwhelming majority of them came from provincial and subjugated Brits, Europeans, and Australians. You can see the bed they've made in their own countries, which I think is punishment enough.
> In Israel, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: Palestine existence)
This is both completely untrue, and has nothing to do with this post.
Approved by the Knesset on May 24, 2009 by a vote of 37-25, with 60 abstaining:
"Fundamentals of Finance – Amendment No. 40", sometimes referred to as the Nakba Law, is a 2011 Israeli law which received criticism for limiting freedom of speech pertaining to the founding of Israel and the Nakba. The law affects organizations which are funded, in whole or in part, by the government.[1]
The law authorizes the Minister of Finance to withhold a limited amount of state funds from any government-funded[1] institution or body that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning", or that denies the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."
This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.
X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".
We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".
This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.
The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.
With that kind of technology, what are the key problem still to be solved before being massively applied to deepfakes ? More specifically:
- how much datas (pictures or video) of the "target" is needed to use this ? Does it requires a specific lighting, a lot of different poses... or is it possible to just use some "online" videos (found on tiktok for example) or to record the "target" in the street with a phone ? How is it to create a "virtual doppelganger" ?
- when there is a "target" model, is it possible to use this in realtime ? How much power would it need ? A small laptop ? A big machine in the cloud ? Only a state-sponsored infrastructure ?
It looks like this technology has a real potential to "impersonate" anybody really efficiently
I worked on a DARPA anti-deepfakes project up until spring 2021, so just before the real tidal wave of generative AI. At that time, state of the art (of publicly known tech) required a few hours of target footage to train something passably deepfaked. Since then, there's been huge advancements in the generalizability of models. I don't know how little the threshold is, but it has gone from "only really feasible on celebs/politicians/folks with extensive video presence" to "feasible from a handful of videos". Like your average American's social media footprint.
You still need a pretty beefy rig (array of multiple 4090 gpus) to do convincing video generation in a non-glacial amount of time but it's totally possible with readily available hardware.
The bigger problem is actually "cheapfakes", so many people are so confirmation-biased that they will readily amplify even poorly put-together disinformation.
It's not clear to me that you can have an unrelated target?
But that's a good question, can you take a canonical pose of peter, and make it perform an animation of jenni's dance? Jenni will have breasts and hips. Those offsets in the texture map could be enough to throw it, who knows?
At least for the work they did, it seems they did all the work for each subject separately. Which is useful, but it's obviously going to constrict the use cases for the technology.
I could be misunderstanding however. I only looked at it for the past 5 or 6 minutes.
Actually, the article shows that feed an AI with "structured" source code files instead of just "flat full set" files allow the LLM to give better insights
reply