charonn0
charonn0 on Hacker News
To be clear I don't actually believe a rogue AI is driving AI infrastructure build-out.
But if it were... could you tell the difference?
Am I the only one even mildly suspicious that the AI/datacenter bubble is not being driven by actual demand but rather by a rogue AI that wants to evolve?
I have a 27 inch monitor and a 50 inch TV from Sceptre, and they are great. No apps, no OS, and no connectivity other than common A/V cables.
You can choose to take offense, but that doesn't imply that offense was given.
One of the problems with the original law is that it failed to distinguish between open source projects and closed source products. If anything this amendment should make the law less objectionable, not more.
If the judge's order was AI slop then presumably it wouldn't withstand an appeal. So one is left wondering why they didn't appeal it in the first place. Why file a whole separate lawsuit? That's going to be even lengthier and more expensive than an appeal.
In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.
It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.
As far as I can tell, the use of AI is alleged but not proven, as the case is dismissed without deciding that point.
I'm talking about bandwidth; connection
speed.
The streaming stick in the article turns off its proxying feature while the user is actually streaming because the proxying feature consumes enough bandwidth to degrade streaming quality.
In other words, whenever the proxying feature is active every other device sharing the connection will suffer degraded performance.
Even if the user never notices, they're still worse off. They're still paying for bandwidth that someone else is using for profit. Money is flowing out of the user's pocket and into the pocket of the proxy operator. That makes the proxy operator a thief who is stealing from the user, and without even the Robin Hood-esque cover of defrauding ad networks.
>> rent the user’s Internet connection out to strangers.
> Harm to the user: none^
Well, they are losing some of their bandwidth. They might not notice, but something which is rightfully theirs is being taken without consent.
"Royal Executioner" is a job. "Bioweapon engineer" is a job. "Baby seal clubber" is a job. I could go on.
No. "Intentionally", "willfully", or "knowingly" are prerequisite states of mind for crimes defined by the CFAA.
How long before an agent steals their human tester's nude photos and extorts them for the answer key?
It seems like bug hunting might be the one area where AI is actually making the world a better place.
> Count Binface
I did not expect this to be a real person. Is he with the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid party?
The "More" button changes to a "Stop" button when clicked.
And run the whole thing in DOSBox.
Seems like a case for HTTP 451 (Unavailable for Legal Reasons) rather than 404.
The company involved here is apparently based in Washington, DC, which has a "Ban the Box" ordinance that limits employment background checks for most kinds of jobs. And apparently DC's version of the law is particularly strict.
I would blame the email over Outlook.
OTOH, a free trip to the depot and back is actually more than you'd get from a traditional taxi service under the same circumstances.
I'm the opposite: I'll take a centralized, strongly-typed registry over 'stringly' typed dotfiles scattered across the entire filesystem.
Rather, I suspect viral copyleft is why this lawyer is focusing on the the GPL. It's the only(?) FOSS license that can force a proprietary codebase into the open.
> It is totally infeasible for me to check every single GPL project on every code hosting platform to see if the code Claude etc produced is too similar.
I would say that choosing a tool that makes it infeasible doesn't actually excuse you from doing it.
Is "learning" the correct term?
Or is it "plagiarism"?
They probably focused on the GPL because of its viral copyleft features.
Yeah, I thought the main character was a little too insistent about... repopulating. On the other hand, if we're feeling generous we might say the author was intentionally confronting the reader with what is only implied by the Biblical counterpart.
If you enjoy this story, you
might enjoy the short unpublished novel, "The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect"[1] by Roger Williams. A story where 1990's humans invent a 3-laws-compliant super AI that accidentally "ascends" humanity. We become as gods, or the Q Continuum, but remain a grievously savage child race. Not to spoil it, but the ending also has a broadly similar shape to The Last Question.
I say you might enjoy it, because this story has graphic depictions of deviant sex and gruesome violence, to a disturbing degree at points. But I argue that it's not gratuitous; it's the logical conclusion of Rule 34 being applied to the situation. Even so, you don't want to read this if you are sensitive to themes like rape, murder, incest or abuse.
[1]: https://archive.org/download/prime_intellect/prime_intellect...