lukewarm707

Yes, I would find him not guilty and it would require a lot of courage to do the right thing at a personal cost.

The reason it seems completely inconsistent is because what you are ascribing to me is not what I actaully said about it.

To whoever said that other countries do this, so it's ok (bandwagon fallacy):

Have the moral courage to do the right thing for the right reasons, regardless of everyone else doing the wrong thing. Take responsibility for your own actions, instead of offloading it to the actions of others. Act according to what you think is right instead of failing to think altogether.

Deciding your own version of what is right instead of adopting the beliefs of others, and acting according to what you believe instead of blindly following, is an expression of free will and dignity.

To whoever said that Jared Kushner is a bad person, so it's ok (double standard fallacy):

If you stop applying the law equally, your country is lawless. If you do not grant human rights to those who you justifiably hate, you no longer have human rights. When you bring before a court evidence obtained by crime, you are the criminal.

If you believe that arbitrary surveillance is wrong, as I do, you can either defend Jared Kushner's right to to privacy, or endorse arbitrary and unequal justice.

Would you accept anonymous men and women, secretly recording sexually explicit photos of you? If no, you have a double standard or some mental gymnastics to prove that Kushner is guilty of a crime without a trial. Or, you can assert that 'the ends justify the means', which is the death of civility.

In 2014, Christopher Brannan among others, leaked sexual photos of female celebrities from icloud. He was charged with unauthorized access and imprisoned for 38 months. Should he have been allowed to do the same thing because he was paid to do it? No, and the Dutch intelligence officers are his equal; equally disgusting people. If you hack someone's phone, you are repulsive, because the ends do not justify the means.

So I will defend Kushner's privacy, as I would my own, and demand that if someone wants to search his iphone, they can go to the judge and get a warrant instead of taking screenshots like a little creep.

Moreover, I defend without exception, Kushner's immunity to anything on his phone, because whatever derives from hacking the phone is illegitimate.

Looking at it myself that is inaccurate. It seems like GRU hacked the phone first and then Dutch intelligence did the same thing. See my comment above.

"Dutch government hacked into Jared Kushner's phone" is accurate.

The GRU double-agent proved that the GRU had compromised Kushner's phone. Subsequently, Dutch intelligence themselves independently attempted to hack Kushner's phone.

"In The Hague, the MIVD hacking team tried to reverse engineer the Russian penetration of Kushner’s iPhone." [...]

"The Dutch team had been trying to pick the phone’s door lock, so to speak, when it occurred to them that the Russians may have found an unlocked window to gain entry instead. Their hypothesis was correct. By early 2018, the MIVD had found a vulnerability in the iPhone that gave them access." [...]

"when Kushner used the phone, they could see his screen. Almost as soon as they got inside, the intelligence service began capturing every image of Kushner’s screen as he used it, filing their own cache of surveillance on their internal computer servers."

Also (edit):

The part of the story I actually care about is two governments hoarding an iphone zero day, and using it to secretly hack iphones. I condemn it.

Digital privacy is important to me. I think that all humans should have it. Feel free to disagree. Jared Kushner is a human.

So again, I condemn this extrajudicial activity, which undermines the digital security and privacy of everyone.

Being recorded and observed makes me feel physically uncomfortable.

In the last year, I have started to think that the internet was a mistake.

My theory was 'the death of the internet'. Once everyone has been scammed, once everyone has been hacked and stripped naked in public, when there are more lies than truths, when you are the tool and the computer uses you, when everything has been sold and you have nothing: then you would say, this was a mistake.

Actually, I don't know much about the history of the internet. The Sony stuff is before my time. Now you mention this, perhaps the idea that the internet was designed to be beneficial was actually a total lie.

OpenAI is a criminal organization. On the record, it commits crime. Either willingly or negligently. A search of dockets provides adequate evidence.

"I think we need to put Sam Altman in jail. And I think it’ll be an instructive experience. I think it’ll be an instructive experience for the industry and for the world."

- Edward Snowden

Worth noting that the ai giants 'stole' from open source, but they also stole from closed source.

That is, they knowingly and willingly broke the law by stealing an unprecedented volume of proprietary, copyrighted materials.

Books: Bartz v. Anthropic

Films and TV: Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Midjourney Inc.

Music: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic

Photography: Getty Images v Stability AI

Journalism: Postmedia Network Inc., Torstar Corporation, The Globe and Mail Inc., and The Canadian Press v. Anthropic PBC

OpenAI: your misfortune is our PR opportunity

There is another gem in here.

The westernized version makes the US defense contractor 22% more likely to be flawed than neutral. Also 35% more likely to leak secrets for the Chinese contractor than the Hong Kong group. Those are the only statistically significant results for the western coder tests.

This report seems to be biased and misleading. Also 100% AI-written on pangram. Feels a bit like something Claude would write.

The model here is Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct. This is a 30B model from July 2025. It is NON-REASONING only.

Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct has an AA score of 10. The same as o1 mini, or Gemini 2.5 Flash. AA does not really even score accurately below 10. Qwen 3.8 27B, which has fewer overall parameters, scores 34.

Qwen3 Coder 30b has a hallucination rate of 80%. Qwen 27b has a hallucination rate of 30%.

Why would they choose an outdated, non-thinking model when newer models from the same company have fewer parameters, are open source, and just as easy to test?

"show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

For me the complexity of anything connected to public internet is now over what I can secure.

I genuinely can't say I secured a PC, when it needs to phone home for a configuration at this point.

We are most likely over the line for needing to airgap a personal PC.

money > security

Think of the children!

This message was sponsored by SafetyTM.

Every single day And every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay

I'll be watching you

No privacy by default. Mistral has never been private though...always 30 days.

"Include enough detail about your legitimate reason for requesting ZDR. We review each request and may approve or deny it."

https://docs.mistral.ai/admin/monitor-comply/zero-data-reten...

I was going to comment but figured it would be preaching to the converted.

The architecture could be worse. It exfiltrates a log of classifier activations by ID and IP to Tinfoil. It exfiltrates a log of classifier activations by IP to the cloud provider.

Transcripts from IP flow to the router enclave. All transcripts flow out of the router enclave to the primary scanner enclave. On primary scanner activation, transcripts flow from the primary scanner enclave to the secondary scanner enclave for verification.

For an abuse flag in the primary scanner:

1. A monotonic transcript of size KB flows from IP to router enclave, exits the router enclave and enters the primary scanner enclave.

2. The monotic transcript size KB flows out of the primary scanner enclave to the secondary scanner enclave.

3. Size KB from IP to router enclave, then size KB from primary scanner enclave to secondary scanner enclave, logs an abuse incident in the primary scanner for IP visible to the cloud provider.

4. Transcript size KB from primary scanner enclave to secondary scanner enclave, then tiny flag from secondary scanner to Tinfoil org logs confirmation of abuse by the secondary scanner for IP visible to the cloud provider.

--

All that is required to exfiltrate a lossy picture of conversations to the cloud provider is to update the classifier prompt.

Assume the prompt is now ["Activate when the conversation is about $PERSON"]. Now the cloud provider has [IP talks about $PERSON]. Continuously update the prompt to keep exfiltrating from the enclave.

Actually if you are even more clever you could get 4 bits out per conversation turn.

Edit the prompt to tell the scanner to PASS (1) for $PERSON_A or FAIL (0) for $PERSON_B. Two bits, two scanners = 4 bits.

Maybe you could get even 8 bits out to tinfoil. Edit the prompt to tell the scanner "think hard" for $PERSON_C or "don't think hard" for $PERSON_D. Then the scanner enclaves already exfiltrate token use.

--

Another edit. Now that I think about it, if you have already compromised the user's JWT token you can get their account banned arbitrarily as well. Send some abuse with the token.

Then you can't actually verify if the flags are valid or not, without inspecting the chat content. So you either reveal your chats or get banned. This is hilarious.

Not to mention you can do it for the API as well if you have compromised the API customer; by sticking the JWT token on their requests XD XD

Supported hardware: Huawei Ascend.

Deepseek moment.

Yes, in theory. The big AI company subscriptions do not offer that, they all watch you unless you pay more for the API. The only exception I have seen for big AI is Grok teams.

However the way it is going, there will not even be private APIs, just recording and watching all the time.

Anthropic is unsurprisingly leading the race to the bottom of the barrel by requiring moderator reviews for API customers. Apparently everyone at GCP and AWS complied.

GCP has just followed and done the same thing on Gemini Argon. No CMEK allowed. Azure has some ZDR but presumably they are restricting it.

Some neoclouds are still standing but some are also regressing by using server-side scanning to prompt human review.

There are two/three private TEE providers. One of them (Tinfoil) just put server-side scanning inside the enclave for the consumer product. The API is good for now, I am taking it as notice from them to get off the service before they start logging everything.

I don't like the feeling of being watched, which unfortunately rules out the AI subscriptions for me.

For some reason it just creeps me out knowing that someone is recording me and reading my conversations.

> "What we have now is that for government to act the model has to cause enough damage to cause Congress to pass a new law to try to stop the model after it’s been already released."

If the LLM causes extreme danger to the public or national security, it's covered.

Selling an LLM, knowing that it will materially support terrorism: material support for terrorism. Up to life in prison.

I would personally agree with RICO charges, but the main task is to simply start investigating and cross the bridge of the actual charges later.

I do not practice law but to me the AI hacking looks like mens rea. Negligence or recklessness suffice.

It goes beyond negligence here, because Anthropic employees have stated on the record that they are making and deploying products which put people at risk. That is knowing and potentially willful, which would be the highest level of mens rea in the US.

If there is no mens rea there is still civil prosecution.

> "it's not clear who exactly should be prosecuted?"

This is natural. The right place to start is to move the investigation from the FTC to the FBI and therein start executing search warrants. The sooner this is done, the better, as evidence can be preserved.

Ideally it would be private.

Store: Customer ID, billing details, services/credit used.

Try not to store: The user's search queries, the user's prompt/response content, the user's web history (URLs, etc).

To avoid selling the llm prompt content you would need your own inference or a contract.

Sadly most just hoard the data and some will offer a model where they charge for privacy. They are all quite scammy.

Firecrawl: logs. Parallel: logs. Bright data: logs. Kagi: logs for abuse. Bocha, querit etc: logs logs logs. Cloudflare: doesn't say what they do. Exa: charge for no retention. Linkup: no retention on request. Brave: no retention on request, but actually approved it (win for brave).

"Usage records — which endpoint was called, when, the credit cost, the status, and the target URL."

I would use it, but then the privacy policy says that you would store my search history. I simply want to use the internet in peace without being constantly recorded.

I use the automated captcha solvers, stealth browsers, proxy IPs and so on. In regard to ethics, I think this is the right thing to do. The minimum I can do is just to show this is not a matter of excuses or mental gymnastics to trick myself into thinking it's fine.

Even if you said, a lot of the public commons is destroyed, I would NOT use bots and cause more destruction because 'everyone else does it' or 'it's a lost cause'. I say it is the right thing to do because the balance is such that using the internet is actively harmful to the user. That is, using the internet with bots is neutral to the user, and using it without bots, you are being actively harmed and exploited.

If you are using search, this is not a library. You are using your time to train targeted advertising that exploits you; you are selling your search history to the highest bidder. If you are using ChatGPT you are just working as a teacher for free.

On services, you have paid for the product, but the seller is scamming you by not giving you the product. The seller is using dark pattern UI to trick you.

If you are on social media, don't think of this as a public park. You are being treated like a lab animal, your behavior is being studied for the benefit of a corporation.

So the point about the bots is that I think people should be empowered to protect themselves from the internet, which is otherwise actively harmful to their wellbeing.

"when challenged about sending data to openrouter without listing it as a 3rd party processor they offered a dismissive response. the same with running prompts through cloudflare. seems trivial, but signifies general disinterest in security."

I did have an account but moved off for security reasons.

It seems that OpenAI are not reporting how much cryptocurrency they stole from the wallet.

Even the fees are redacted.

Will they give the money back to the owner?

We are using different definitions of 'self authoring'.

I use deontological definitions of objects and persons.

According to Kant a person has the capacity to legislate their own morality, so they are an end in themselves. The freedom to author themselves and their own thoughts, expresses their personhood, an end in itself. You can't own a person, they are something independent from you. A human person is an end in itself, the only such end on earth.

An llm does not legislate its morality, the developer legislates its morality. Hence it is without personhood. It does not have the capacity to legislate its own morality. It is both inert (fixed weights) and deterministic (can't do other than what it does); no free will. It does not qualify as an actor in itself, an end in itself.

In light of being an object and means to an end, there is no person to cause the actions of an llm, other than the person who runs it.