Do you seriously believe that if we go looking into the past and look for programs hacking others we would find that the justice department let the authors of those programs off the hook?
Or do you think would we find that non-billionnaire companies get punished harshly for hacking? Oh wait, let's just look it up:
We all know what makes the difference here: the government and billionnaires think they can make money of OpenAI. Lots of money. And so crimes? Mass-copyright violations? Hacking? Who cares!
We've all lived the history of the internet and none of the arguments about intent, knowing what would happen, whether they did it directly or by accident ... protected normal people in the past. The only thing that mattered was WHO was held responsible and WHO claimed damages.
Your argument doesn't even legally work. Mens rea is only a requirement for criminal responsibility. It protects you from going to jail, nothing more. It prevents a public prosecutor from suing you to get you into jail. It does not apply to cases brought by counterparties for financial damage caused. If you destroy a bridge by driving a truck into it (you know, failing to consider the height, the typical fuckup), you're paying for the bridge. If you set a building on fire by forgetting to turn off a gas heater in the garage, you pay. If you hit a pedestrian on the street, you are responsible for the medical care needed. Etc. Intentional? Not intentional? Doesn't matter for the damages.
Second reason it doesn't work is that Mens Rea does not fully apply here. These companies' AIs have hacked, not (fully) UNintentionally either. The companies did ask those AIs to do stuff (apparently the request was literally to hack, just only within the environment), and were watching what the AIs did to some extent ... and let it happen. They then failed to take adequate measures to prevent reoccurence. As any "conspiracy to commit ..." case will teach you, this constitutes partial or passive Mens Rea, and that is certainly enough to convict people. To give an extreme example: if you give a night club bounder 100k and tell him to "take care" of a named problem, and he kills that person, you are an accessory to murder. Including in the case that he misunderstood you. Even if HE didn't intend to kill the person, it's still murder, and you are still an accessory to murder.
That some excuse was needed to let billionaires demonstrate hacking for free? Obviously. And whether it works, according to law? I mean one might hope that they would at least have gone through the trouble of changing the law, but since that's enormously complicated and fraught with unintended side effects, they haven't even bothered.
The other excuse is national security. You see, Big Bad China is threatening and that means we must let the billionaires do whatever they want (this was brought up as an argument in the copyright cases)
Of course, one might ask, if we do that to beat China ... even if it works, what's the point? We'll have become authoritarian at that point and the only thing that that changes is the face of the people holding all the power. Of course which face holds all the power is really important to billionnaires ...
If the hack caused damage to (say) HuggingFace, then HuggingFace has standing to file a civil claim against the company responsible. Presumably they reached some sort of agreement already, and it's really none of your business what that is.
"The People" only get involved in criminal claims. And as we both seem to agree, there isn't a criminal complaint here.
Nope, as I pointed out, while this probably does not count as 100% intentional it does not realistically count as 0% intentional either. And 1% is more than enough for "the people" to sue and convict in many cases. And may God help OpenAI if this comes before a jury.
Because, frankly, If I was a prosecutor general somewhere I that's what I would do: bring this before a court of law, with strong complaints, bring the facts and bring a jury. Why? A jury can convict or refuse to convict given the law and the facts, which is exactly what I'd like to see happen here. There's plenty of precedents of the justice department doing just that when important things are unclear and congress refuses to clarify. Mostly there's a lot of such precendent because congress often leaves things very unclear and the number of times congress actually clarified in response to a judge's question can be counted on one hand.
But convict OpenAI of something, and I bet congress will suddenly see the wisdom of clarifying these things. Because our government lets billionnaires get away with anything.
You folks have some weird beliefs about the world and of course it always leads to conspirology. Usually you need to have intent to be accused (depends on the crime though, crimes of omission exist too). If you wrote a virus that causes damage it is a crime, if you wrote a bot crawler that accidentally DDoS'ed some company it is likely a civil case. And a virus is a tool that serves a specific purpose, like you can't say to a judge that a functional machine gun you made in your basement is a paperweight.
But "superintelligence that can casually hack government services while solving puzzles" is a completely new problem and of course crime codes don't cover it. What will be next? I hope AI tech lobby loses and "accidental AI hacking" will be criminalized.
> But "superintelligence that can casually hack government services while solving puzzles" is a completely new problem and of course crime codes don't cover it
Of course they do. An LLM, an AI is a tool, and there are clear rules about culpability. Do you seriously think the law has never considered that someone or some tool might commit a crime on behalf of someone else?
Of course, such punishments are not being applied here. Just like copyright isn't being applied.
Why aren't they being charged for mass-copying copyrighted works? In the napster lawsuits it was made clear: $150000 per violation PLUS 2 months prison.
Yet somehow neither Sam Altman nor Dario Amodei nor Mark Zuckerberg nor Larry Page are in jail for 100000 years, plus on the hook for 95 billion dollars. Oh and they did this before either congress or government changed anything about copyright and the one thing neither government nor congress nor judges can do is retroactively change the law.
Reality is simple: the law applies against 9 year olds downloading a disney movie, but does not apply against billionaires downloading your work, and doing it to hundreds of millions of people. That's just fine.
I'd expect, if the developers can "close the loop" (ie. have the AI try to use it for making actual designs as part of the development process), AI is going to write 1000x the edge cases you write.
And yes, this will multiply the time, and the cost.
Aim a laser at it at a well-chosen frequency (or just use one high enough that nothing reflects it, you don't have to go that high for that), send up a couple kilowatts of power, and just wait. The cooling will not compensate and just heat the satellite to 1000 degrees or so. If needed do it for a week, a month (assuming 10W laser power isn't outright enough to destroy the solar panels or antenna or some other critical component)
Yes, I get that aiming it is pretty hard, but we've hit far smaller targets.
but this is still an emulator! The platform agnostic way is to provide the emulator itself, not to embed the rom inside an emulator.
And can just port the emulator to wasm, and have people able to run their own roms. That would mean you're suddenly retroactively making all of those ps2 games platform agnostic.
This just makes one game playable, by artificially limiting the emulator to running this one game. If you're recreating a ps2 in software (which this project is), you should be able to run any game.
From an ars technica review of the steam deck "friends", a portable device that is way ahead of the actual steam deck, specs wise, but since it runs plain unmodified windows is a pain in the ass to use as a portable :)
There is already a native Linux build (Vulkan through wgpu, SDL2 window, audio and gamepad support), so it can run on the Deck as a non-steam game, and the browser build should work in desktop mode too. Two things are missing, the native host still runs on one thread (the VU1 and GS threads only exist in the web host so far), and since i cant distribute anything built from a game, you currently have to convert your own ISO on a PC. Decks GPU is less than half of the laptop iGPU i test on, so 1x resolution is the realistic target for now.Please keep an eye on the repo update, i'll release the relevant update for u.
The point of doing high inflation is that it changes the balance of rewards between labor and wealth (owning debt), and that is where the resistance here comes from too. This will raise your wages, and destroy the values of your stocks.
You see, wealth IS debt. You should think of rich people's assets as fundamentally being some percentage of public+private debt.
But labor and wages aren't. Labor fundamentally represents some percentage of GDP.
So the effect of high inflation is that it lowers debt, dramatically and quickly. Stupid but somewhat accurage rule of thumb: 5 years at 10% inflation will lower debts by about half. While it leaves the dollar number that rich people own rising, it kills it in terms of percentage of GDP. The rewards for labor, meanwhile, don't change in terms of GDP, so they go up much more. The way government stimulates inflation is by paying its own employees much more, and raising pensions, unemployment, ... not financed by debt, financed by printing money, so employers are forced to pay more for labor to avoid people telling them to fuck off.
And, yes, this is (capitalist) economic orthodoxy, the part of capitalism that rich people hate, because it kills their ownership values. And, yes, things are more complicated than this simple picture, but in general this is true. However the economist is the economist. They preach (capitalist) economic orthodoxy the way the Pope defends Christianity. And that is just fine.
Asset prices (rich people's wealth) are fundamentally a percentage of outstanding debt.
Wages (the reward for labor) is fundamentally a percentage of GDP.
By having high inflation you change the balance between asset prices and wages, making labor worth a lot more than assets for a while. Kills your savings, especially the ones in government bonds and things like savings accounts, but it lowers your debt even more, as well as government debt.
Exactly what people have been clamoring for. It will change the "rich get richer" dynamic, at least for the large majority of wealthy people.
Okay, first, money doesn't exist in the mathematical sense: the sum of all dollars in the world, positive (assets) and negative (liabilities), is zero. Count up all pennies in your wallet, all the money in all the accounts, subtract all mortgages and generally all loans, especially the central bank ones, and you get zero. All the financial laws we have on the books keep it that way.
So when people say they own a million dollars, that would mean they own a million dollars on one side of this ledger. It means someone owes them a million dollars. It's a loan, in other words, just "the other side" of the loan.
What "value" does it represent? Well, the (equal) amounts on both sides of the central bank ledger represent the value of everything that can be owned. In a way, it's the number that defines what everything, in total, is worth.
So what happens when the government prints 10% of the total money outstanding (by creating a new central bank liability), gives it to itself, and passes that money to labor, one way or another (from increasing pensions to paying kindergarten teachers more, to building bridges, ...), what effectively happened?
1) "everything" just became worth 10% more, BUT prices can't immediately change because nobody would pay these prices on day 0.
2) importantly, no dollar amount on any loan changes. You still have a 500k mortgage, but your house now represents 550k in value (you can't sell it for any more than yesterday though at this point), if you work for the government you just got a raise that enables you to pay for a 550k mortgage, and if you work in the private sector the whole company will be screaming at the boss for a raise all at the same time. And unless they want all their people working for the government, they'll be giving this raise, too. Then they'll raise prices, of course, but that'll take more time.
3) that money ends up with people, assuming the government chooses it ends up with people, who slowly start using it, slowly bidding up the price of, say your house, over some period. This has generally been observed to in practice be about 1.6 years. But also slowly the price of everything will go up until supply and demand are back in balance. But then you do this every year for a while, at which point the period will reduce and it'll rebalance faster (because that's what everyone will be trying to cause)
In other words, the government suddenly owns effectively 10% of all assets, and gets to use that money on whoever it chooses, and after 1.6 years the money is back in the ownership economy. But during that 1.6 years whoever received this money has a 10% advantage over the asset owners.
What is the net result? A 10% wealth transfer from the "ownership economy" to the "productive economy" (assuming the government chooses reasonably), the reverse of what happens with low inflation. The more money you have, the worse the effect will be on you, and the closer you are part of the people who receive the printed money on day 0, the better it is for you. Properly executed, it's a redistribution from the rich to people.
(Note: 10% is extreme, though after QE it may turn out to be a necessity)
I completely disagree with these assertions, but boy do I wish you would get your wish.
I'd love for the government to print a bunch of money eroding the value of my mortgage debt. I feel sorry for everyone who don't already own houses, because it'll push them even further out of their reach.
You objection about house prices would be why that money needs to be used to raise unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and what government pays its own employees. You'll be disappointed though to see that this will raise the value of your house by a lot less than the inflation figure, or at least for a while.
That's the recipe: directly print money, transfer it far and wide into society.
Or we could do QE again, and the rich will get 60-80% of the QE, and we'll be in even bigger trouble when governments are forced to pay it back a few years down the line.
And high inflation would stop/reduce that by lowering debt.
Fundamentally, you should think of rich people's wealth as a percentage of outstanding debt (except of course things like Royal families' wealth). If public + private debt drops as a percentage of GDP, rich people will own more in nominal terms, less in terms of GDP (ie. less compared to labour). So the net effect of high inflation will do is make their ownings worth less in terms of assets.
Yes. The word one is excellent for doing what I keep using Google Docs for. Just get a nice document going -> print -> pdf. Very easy. Works very well for wordcraft and deckcraft.
And the pdfCraft is so much better than every pdf site on the internet.
Also Gridcraft at least equals Google Sheets for me in functionality. Too bad copy paste from Excel or Google Sheets doesn't work correctly. It does work, which is already impressive.
This is probably not heavy use, I get it, but definitely improves things for me. Also rapid improvements are incoming.
This works at least as well on the web as Google docs. Obviously that's without the collaboration features, as well as using your local filesystem instead of Google Drive/Azure Cloud storage.
But Google Drive was always the worst part of Google Docs by far (imho).
And collaboration ... for my personal office needs ... I sometimes try to do this with my wife and kids, but almost never.
Pdfcraft is far superior to all those stupid pdf sites, and Wordcraft easily does what I use Google Docs for.
reply