stevewatson301
Apart from the copyright issues that parent mentions, there's also the issue of LLM spewing BS confidently, which is why Google has been hesitant to roll it out as their default.
The scheme you propose had already been proposed by Elad Cohen, but with "evil" intentions as they're linked to a IPv4 misappropriation scheme[1].
[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/security/367188-the-great-afr...
> Human: write a biblical verse in the style of the king james bible explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR
> ChatGPT: "And lo, the Lord spake unto the people, saying, 'Thou shalt not place thy peanut butter sandwich within the VCR, for it is not a suitable place for such sustenance. But if perchance thou hast done so, fear not, for I shall show thee how to remove it. First, take a soft cloth and gently dab at the corners of the sandwich, using small and measured movements. Then, using a thin and pliable tool, carefully loosen the sandwich from its sticky confines, taking care not to damage the VCR. And when thou hast succeeded, give thanks unto the Lord for thy deliverance.'"
> Apparently it may also come as a surprise to some readers and the researchers themselves that other root program members are in fact international governments, and some are also defense companies, or companies who are wholly-owned by defense companies and/or state-owned enterprises, meaning "businesses" that are completely owned or controlled by governments. Further, some of those governments are not free/democratic and in fact some have tragic modern histories of basic human rights violations. We are none of those things and our company does not identify with those values. Given this point above, why of all potential targets are these researchers interested in TrustCor? They could go after countries with human rights violations that have placed a CA in the program.
Your average user is unlikely to begin to understand why a CA would be trustworthy, and a web of trust model only works for social situations but not for certificate distribution.
Further, no lawyer would advise making a statement such as "we've been asked to avoid discussing our legal structure because we may be punished by tax authorities", because the statement itself can be taken as an admission of wrongdoing.
Further, even in times of stress, lashing out isn't the best decision. If I were interrogated by a cop and I called them a bunch of names, I would attract additional charges, on top of being suspected of commiting the crime that I've been accused of.
And unlike the more vocal counterparts of minorities who take to the streets when they feel aggrieved, people with adverse mental health keep suffering in isolation, so it's difficult to make a political issue out of it in the first place.
In that case, isn't it better for user privacy (not that anyone cares about it in China) to receive an ICP recordal but then wait for an actual request from law enforcement to turn over the logs?
Also, while you wouldn't see anyone from Amazon or Cloudflare comment on your thread, both have the ability to stream logs to a destination, and that is also exposed to customers, so I don't think they needed to build anything else.
People understand the world through dimensionality reduction and lossy compression of information in domains that they are not involved on a daily basis. This causes an inherent issue when you stack these phenomena across multiple organizational levels; this is how you end up with Intel's or Ballmer-era Microsoft's management failures, to use some non-WITCH examples, or the issues that we're talking about in this article.
For an executive, it's easier to justify outsourcing to a large consulting firm simply because of the security afforded by the choice and the ease of justification; rather than any technical abilities they may or may not possess, and certainly it does not imply its correctness.
The anecdotes you hear are from a engineering perspective, which is where the consulting firm has to walk the walk, exposing their true abilities. It is incorrect to dismiss that as being "salty" or "pretentious", and tint them with an angle of "discrimination". The lack of processes and guardrails in these consulting companies is an objective fact.
Most companies the size of WITCH do not utilize access keys nor add them to source control. While a developer may make a mistake, you would expect there would be guardrails around the development process.
You could also perhaps say this is a management problem than an employee problem; and while that is true, such distinctions are rarely made. As an example, I'm sure you've had bad experiences with customer support which you simply summarized as "The support rep at Corp X sucks" when talking to other people; whereas the truth might be somewhere closer to "The support rep was out of luck because they didn't have a process to do A, B and C because management didn't think of it."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islami...
Regardless, the AP news article[1] linked under the "methods" page provides some useful reading on how to detect these faces, for anyone interested.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-artificial-intelligen...