Huggingface has disclosed a security incident in which AI driven infiltrant (17k actions over a couple days) chained vulnerabilities to move through the infrastructure.

The responded with AI-driven analysis, but Anthropic and OpenAI models refused to perform that analysis because their "safety" features didn't distinguish it as a defensive measure.

So they had to fall back to an open model (GLM 5.2).

In short, attackers have unshackled AI at their disposal and if you don't have your own open models running you are ceding that to them as purely their advantage.

Well, yes. For many years, presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, referred to the United States as "the indispensible nation". And my reaction was always, "Doesn't that mean the US is a single point of failure for civilization?"

We are currently performing an experiment which addresses this question: can the US enjoy the benefits of soft power without the cost? That's the whole point of obeying *norms*. No individual force is going to punish you if you are treacherous, mercurial, foul-mouthed, disrespectful and generally unpredictable. Everyone will punish you.

I think an inevitable cost of this experiment will be that the world will decide that the US can't be a single point of failure for global democracy any longer. In many ways, that's something that will be good for us. But it's also going to cost us in painful ways. When the world decides to move away from the dollar as the international reserve currency, you will see both inflation and higher interest rates on everything from credit cards to mortgages, to business loans that will offset the export advantages. We will need *more* business investment to shift the economy to producing low value goods again, so the transition will be rocky.

It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.

Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.

If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.

I think it may be evidence that Amazon has a shitty corporate culture that squeezes every penny it can out its employees.

Corruption can happen anywhere, but it's more likely to happen in totalitarian cultures where people feel like the system is rigged anyway. That's why countries like Russia and China have corruption problems. But I suspect the same feelings of me vs. the system occur in a capitalist enterprise like Amazon where employees are governed by dystopian, rigid, computerized metrics.

But he did deal with people like you, hence his essay.

No, you aren't. A centrist is someone located between Social-Democracy, meaning what's done in most of Europe, and Social-Liberalism, "worst known" to Americans as "Liberalism". AmiMojo positions are centrist. Yours, from the little I've seen, are quite explicitly right-wing.

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

For the record, I'm neither American nor British, so I'm talking badly about a foreign country. Is that allowed? But I can talk badly about my own country, which is currently run by the left (as in, actual left, not what Americans think that word means), and full of corruption. Can I criticize that, or should I praise them because it's my country and thus that'd count as "truth"?

AmiMojo: Defends one the hugest pro-free-market aliance of Capitalist countries in History.

Anonymous Coward: calls that Capitalist free-market alliance "far left".

AmiMojo: practices what G. K. Chesterton, one of the most well-regarded Conservative intellectuals of the late-19th and early-20th centuries, defended in his famous 1901 essay A Defence of Patriotism.

Anonymous Coward: likely believes Chesterton to be a Communist or whatever.

20 years, zero learning. Sad, so sad.

A major reason for that is the fact mainstream media is entirely owned by a tiny number of billionaires who actively use it to advance whatever narrative suits each one, to the point journalists wanting to keep their integrity must leave.

And a major way this might be solved would be by breaking these personal fiefdoms, forcing mainstream media to break into competing operations, as used to be the case before deregulation made consolidation possible, and then a certainty.

No one can possibly think that a one-time tax like this is a good idea. Even if you want higher taxes on the wealthy surely (a) you want recurring revenue not a one-off (b) you want to actually collect the taxes not just scare the tax base out of state.

But this is the key part:

The way the ballot process in California works is you can propose terrible legislation, pay for signatures, then get what you want in return for withdrawing it (which you can do even after submitting signatures, which is ridiculous).

It's become a very broken system.

Well I am sure they are not wrong in that they have legal cover to refuse the bounty.

I think they probably are wrong in excluding all config related bugs from their bounty program. Chained exploits are becoming increasing attack vectors so "you need elevated privileges" is not the moat it used to be. And GCP takeover is a big cost to bear. "We can prove it was your fault for not reading our docs carefully enough" will probably not be the salve their customers want in case of exploit. Security is hard and protecting customers from footguns is often worth doing.

But if Google doesn't want to know about these kinds of issues that's up to them. Keep it in mind before purchasing their services, however.

The restrictions are a mix of reasonable nuisance management and paranoia about who is flying drones, what they can do, and chain of custody.

Beijing proper is a city with a population density of over 21,000 / km^2 -- so you can imagine the chaos if any tech enthusiast resident could fly a drone without a permit. Except for a couple of free zones in the outer boroughs, New York City restricts drone launcing and landings within the city to flights with a permit and flight plan, because otherwise the sky would be black with drones. Many cities -- both red and blue -- have zone restrictions for drone flights, and those currently hosting World Cup matches have tightened them for the duration of the tournament.

Quite the opposite. He hates Anthropic and keeps trying to find a way, any way, to damage them. Those attempts keep backfiring, though. It's the internal image of his international misadventures.

That's the thing: it isn't. Those are monetary movements that exist only on paper, not realized. Company A "invests" $x on company B, which invests $y and $z on companies C and D, with C then investing $p back into A and $q into D, with company D then investing $r back into A and $s on B, and B also investing $t on A, etc. It's a Ponzi scheme, but in the form of a maze rather than that of a pyramid.

The purpose of those movements is to leverage stock prices. A company valued at $hundreds of billions that gets re-evaluated at $trillions due to all this paper-shuffling sees its stock prices rise. Executives and shareholders profit by exchanging their overvalued portfolios for actual money, and whoever is left with those shares on hand when the bubble pops and the market crashes (read: pension funds) loses.

The last prediction I saw on this said people are likely going to see half their lifelong retirement savings disappear almost overnight when that hits, all the while the billionaires who sold at the right moment will see themselves catapulted into almost trillionaires, with a few becoming outright trillionaires.

Democrats wouldn't let those companies die either. Can you imagine all their hawks being content letting Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and Nvidia cease to exist, and with them the global leverage those companies provide the US? No, they're all "too big to fail" no matter who's in charge. That's pretty much a bipartisan thing.

The problem for Russia is they're running out of money. Even with suicidal infantry being cheap, those still need lots of equipment and logistics to keep going, and there's nowhere else to source all of that from, whether from within or without. And it isn't like Russian pseudo-allies are really helping.

China, in particular, is double-dipping on them by demanding that oil and gas it purchases from Russia be sold at extraordinarily low prices, with the exact same heavily subsidised prices Russia sells them to its own population, while at the same time selling everything Russia needs for military use at the highest price it can charge. Russia cannot say no to either demand, so that's depleting Russian coffers even faster than they expected. And it isn't like China minds Russia becoming weaker due to this strategy. The more dependent Russia becomes on China, the easier it'll become for China to, someday, demand Russia give back all the Chinese territories the Russian Empire took from them when China itself was weakened during the 19th century.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has developed its military technology in-house, and with such a high level of competence, it's now exporting it and even building drone factories in other countries, countries that are in turn becoming heavy customers of Ukrainian tech and dependent on it for their own military uses, which in turn is paving the way for that technology, that doesn't depend of people on the ground walking toward the meat grinder while making it even more of a meat grinder, to advance at a faster and faster pace.

At this point, there's little Russia can do that'd turn things around other than going nuclear, and even that isn't guaranteed to go well for Russia, as Ukraine has very likely been preparing for that contingency for the last four years. If anything, going nuclear would precipitate the entire world attacking them.

And then to China taking back its former territories even earlier than they expected to.

Tyrants in general, from Putin to Trump, Xi to Kim, and everyone in between, practice seeding waves upon waves of contradictory lies mixed with a handful of truths with the very deliberate goal of causing exactly that emotional reaction: exhausted cynicism. They promote contradictory lies at home, so their people become accustomed to the notion that factual truth is hard or even impossible to achieve, and then convince their populations to generalize that cynicism so that they also start believing it's the same everywhere. That generates apathy toward politics in general, and by extension mistrust of those who are genuine in their activism, the latter being "felt" as nothing but agents of so many hidden interests, actors faking conviction in exchange for under-the-table benefits. People tune out and, as the saying goes, if one opts for neutrality in a dispute where one side is more powerful than the other, then one's siding with the powerful against the weak. And tyrants absolutely love that attitude: it's a huge factor in them maintaining their power unchallenged.

There are ways out of that. The heuristic I personally follow is to side with the weak side in any direct dispute with the powerful unless I have access to extremely trustworthy information showing that specific case is one of the very, very rare instances in which that doesn't apply due to extreme circumstances.

Hence, in Ukraine vs Russia I'm with Ukraine, because Ukraine is the weak against the strong and Russia is the attacker. Were it NATO attacking Russia, or China attacking Russia, I'd be with Russia. Were it the US attacking China, I'd be with China. Were it China attacking India, I'd be with India. India attacking Pakistan, I'd be with Pakistan. And so on.

Ditto for internal contexts. A Christian government in a Christian-majority country against small religions of minority groups, or against LGBT+ people? I'm with these. Muslim fanatics in Islamic-majority countries attacking Christian minorities? I'm with the Christians. Chinese attacking Falun Gong cultists or Vatican-loyal Catholics? I'm with both of these. Etc.

Take the side of the immediately weak against an attacking directly immediately strong, and you will rarely be on the wrong side of that specific dispute.

You're welcome. I only act aggressively in discussions when I'm attacked first, or the other deliberately acts with intellectual dishonesty. If that isn't the case, then my rhetoric may be at times ironic and even sarcastic, but it's always serious and on topic.