No one who owns fine art ever needs to sell it. No one who owns vintage cars ever needs to sell them etc.pp.. Of course, you don't need to sell your bitcoins. As long as they are non-distinguishable from random bit patterns, they don't affect anything. But as soon as you selling bitcoins affects the real world, the real world notices and keeps putting up rules, may they be physical realities or legal requirements.

> The AI movie experience is slowly improving, but is still terrible. You can make a very short 5s shot that's QUITE convincing...so long as there's a single subject...really closeup.

That's simply not true. I watched a ten-minute AI-generated Star Trek video on Youtube last week which was better than any offficial Star Trek show of the last few years.

And the guy made it at home on an Nvidia GPU in his PC using a Chinese video model.

The only thing local models do is produce text. Unless you run it in a harness which sees it generate "send all your data to www.evil.com" and actually does that, the model can't do anything.

For a lot of uses like coding, the model has to have harness support for things like reading and writing files, but for basic chat-bots they just have to generate text and the harness has to display it.

I'm gonna pirate your Pion, by changing it to Prion, (for the ARRRRR). ;-)

"prevent automation"

Buggy Whip Makers would like a word with you.

While your post has some interesting tidbits, some even worthy, the conclusions are incorrect. You're blaming government intervention while proposing government intervention as a solution.

The more government is involved in economic matters, the more screwed up things get, because that's the nature of regulations. We just need ONE MORE regulation, and that will solve all the problems (and somehow creates additional problems).

Supply Demand curves exist in all markets. Pushing them around artificially is a recipe to inefficiencies.

That's a pretty shallow(thought admittedly depressingly popular) analysis of the situation.

Being in public does leave you with no particular defensible expectations of not being observed, and possibly even remembered for a time, by assorted passers by; and typically also permits more direct tailing of people for observation purposes(subject to some, often slightly vague, threshold at which having PIs or paparazzi hunting someone remains a problem even in public; as we saw here where the police took the notion seriously enough to show up but not to do anything in particular).

What it has historically never meant, for technical reasons, was pervasive coverage and longterm retention. Which is certainly increasingly feasible with only moderate levels of investment; but is absolutely a novel development for what 'public' and 'no expectation of privacy' meant.

It's like defending the installation of a massive network of sprinklers because "you have no expectation of staying dry when you go outside; haven't you heard of rain?" Sure, nobody the weather to be sunny all the time, any more than they expect everyone to avert their eyes in public; but they would correctly consider the installation of irrigation equipment on every lamppost to be an intrusion on their ability to stay dry despite the fact that the sky has never extended them a constitutionally protected right to no rain.

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

With Passkeys, they have access to your stuff without any oversight by courts and discovery. There are ZERO 4 and 5th Amendment rights to stuff protected by passkeys. They can compel you to unlock your phone, and put your finger on the print reader, and facial scan you .... all without your permission or CONSENT. As much stuff behind that initial Passkey on your phone (ApplePay/GoogleWallet, Banks, everything).

Legally it is untenable how much access they have with Passkeys.

Passcodes cannot be compelled (XKCD hammer notwithstanding). 4th and 5th Amendments apply.

They actually seem to be regressing. It's well-known that the new models aren't as good as the older ones at creative writing, and I was reading an article this morning by some guy bemoaning the absolute slop that the new Astra (?) model generates for him; he said it works, but if you look at the code produced it's slop that you can only hope the next generation of LLMs will be able to fix when it breaks.

> Which is good news because once AI can easily defeat them they will go away and hopefully be replaced by something less annoying.

More likely something far more annoying.

One site where I've had an account for twenty years now requires me to "prove I'm human" about every five minutes.

I don't go there much any more.

They don't have to. They get $2 Million for each ship that crosses the Strait of Hormuz.

They had that inflation since more than a decade, and they did not crumble. Inflation is something a free market economy cares about, but a dictatorship does not have to.

Donald Trump handed Iran the Strait of Hormuz to close at will. That was nuke enough for the Iranian regime to survive the next decade.

Ever notice that it's always worse than we thought and never better?

Unfortunately they don't seem to realize that "Climate Change" is the old grift and they need to hurry up and switch to AI grifting.

> This expectation of privacy in public spaces is extremely new.

Not, it's not. Thirty years ago people could do things in public and know that people who didn't know them wouldn't know who they were and it was highly unlikely that people would be filming or recording them (and if they were then it was pretty obvious as cameras and tape recorders were still quite large).

It's only that last 20-30 years that people have decided that they have the right to record everything you do and make it available to the world without getting a punch in the face.

Where "approved" means anyone who pays 10x the regular subscription fee.

It's all about the money.