This is nonsense. Cryptography and secret codes have been around for as long as communication. One-time pads were first used on the telegraph in 1882.
I didn't say possible. I said practical. Strong crypto is hard. Secure key exchange is hard.
Governments have been breaking codes for as long as we have had codes.
LK
Even the most professional of officers would be tempted if he was was cheating on him or if someone delivered a credible threat to the safety of his children.
The best way to prevent this kind of abuse is to make it impossible.
LK
I don't see it. For example, cell phone records are only recorded and accessible via warrant, and by presenting that warrant to a provider directly. Same could be done with E2EE data if forced through the cell phone provider's networks.
That would mean an end to E2EE APIs on cell phones and other devices, which may be practically impossible at this point.
Edward Snowden showed that this is not as true as you seem to think it is.
LK
Oh dear lord, the hyperbole. We allow law enforcement access to all other forms of communication with a lawful warrant. So should this particular technology be exempt from that?
Then, let them serve the warrant.
What is different is that for the first time in human history, it's not only possible but it's practical to have encrypted communications that no one can access except for the intended recipient.
All of "the most heinous of crimes" take place in the real world, there is some physical action that can be detected and punished. I don't care if this makes the job of law enforcement harder. I want law enforcement to be a difficult and time consuming job. Idle and bored cops tend to find ways to fill their time and it's never good.
LK
I've been thinking about adding solar panels to my house. I would love if I could get a federal subsidy to do it. However, just like with my student loan forgiveness, I'm NOT giving Biden my vote in exchange.
LK
Every change looks like corruption in the eyes of people who don't like it.
And corruption looks like evolution to some people.
Personally, I'm in favor of words meaning as much of the same thing over time as possible. It enhances communication and understanding. If you need a new meaning, you either need a new word or you need to explain yourself at a bit more length. Lest you "decimate" (cough) the listener's/reader's understanding... you get me?
LLMs cannot do it. Hallucination is baked-in.
LLMs alone definitely can't do it. LLMs, however, seem (to me, speaking for myself as an ML developer) to be a very likely component in an actual AI. Which, to be clear, is why I use "ML" instead of "AI", as we don't have AI yet. It's going to take other brainlike mechanisms to supervise the hugely flawed knowledge assembly that LLMs generate before we even have a chance to get there. Again, IMO.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though.
I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences; also it needs to be able tell fake news from real news. Although there's an entire swath of humans who can't do that, so it'll be a while I guess. That whole "reality has a liberal bias" truism ought to be a prime training area.
While I certainly understand that the Internet and its various social media cesspools are the most readily available training ground(s), it sure leans into the "artificial stupid" thing.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James