Shooting down each other's drones because nobody is competent enough for coordination is, technically, "working together in an unprecedented fashion". So there is that.

Because if you can get the Chinese government to share its secrets with your computer, then you get to be the new Chinese government. How can you look at the power Putin has over Trump and not want something similar?

As a pro-US person, I want China to be using these US-hosted tools, and I want people like Hegseth prosecuted for anything they knowingly leak.

I'm not saying every server in the US needs to have a "please upload your most valuable secrets here" form, but shouldn't there be some? It might as well be whatever's currently "hot" since that'll invite the most unwitting cooperation with US Intel.

Is this not common sense?

It wouldn't be news if you looked at their terms of service -- which you should. The ToS explicitly say they use a combination of automated systems, human review, and reports to identify and investigate violations of their usage terms, including violence, abuse, fraud, impersonation, disinformation, foreign influence campaigns , abusive sexual content, and academic dishonesty. This includes "anonymous" sessions that are saved for a minimum of 30 days. You have no expectation of privacy from the provider's compliance teams.

This is *absolutely* standard among the major online players. So why not use a local AI workstation with a couple of big-ass GPU cards in it to run the campaign? That's what they *should* have done. But the major online players like ChatGPT and Claude are much better at realistic content generation than the widely available local models you can run.

What they should have done is design and run the compaign on a local AI workstation, and used the local workstation to generate prompts they could feed into burner accounts on public services like ChatGPT and Claude. But they got lazy and ran the *whole* operation in ChatGPT, right in plain fiew of the OpenAI compliance teams the ToS they evidently didn't read would have told them were there. They even did *performance reviews* in the same account.

Remember folks, these "spooks" are just mid-level paper-pushers in an opaque communist bureacuracy. You can never discount inertia in such an environment. Because this was something new, they might even have had trouble getting the purchase of some high end GPUs approved.

OMFG is a Z-machine an application? "Hey kids, come run pornograph--err, I mean pornoliteral adventure games on my dirty Frotz fork!"

"COVERED APPLICATION STORE " DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ONLINE SERVICE OR PLATFORM THAT DISTRIBUTES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS IF THE APPLICATION RUNS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN A SEPARATE HOST APPLICATION:

(I) EXTENSIONS

(II) PLUG- INS

(III) ADD- ONS

(IV) OTHER SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS .

Is a JVM an application? Is a hypervisor an application? Is lua/cpython/awk an application?

If so, then we could theoretically split our repositories into two, where only a subset of "applications" need special handling, and higher-level applications can be free of any new problems. Of course, the "special handling" will still be an absolute nightmare.

I'd like to be more optimistic; but I'm not sure that would be the outcome. It's not like we actually expect operating under actual legal guidance (indeed, we come up with insulting nonsense like standards for 'qualified immunity' that basically let you off unless it's exceptionally obvious that you are operating against well established practice; and commonly just substitute things like 'acted according to policy and training' for questions of whether the policy and training reflect legal practice or not when it comes to even the excessive force cases that actually make it to trial.

And, if there's anything LLMs seem to be good at, it's generating results that look pretty plausible; so if you combine high plausibility narrative generation, a veneer of technological objectivity, and the downright servile deference to the official narrative, it would probably be even easier to beat the rap than it is now; when you can at least sometimes put the spotlight on someone clearly and distastefully letting their motives show or acting irrationally.

It's about trying to hit critics of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] with everything, everywhere, all at once.

Ok. I hereby want to say: Fuck the CCP. I criticize you. You're wrong about everything. Taiwan is a separate county and CCP needs to bow to their authority over mainland China even though it's a different country. (Sorry if that last sentence doesn't make any sense, but it's the thought that counts (right?) and also I'm joining Falun Gong so maybe religion simply broke my brain. But I wholeheartedly believe it!)

Tear down the wall. I want to see you invaded by the Mongols again. I support the Mongols. And Taiwan. And Japan. And South Korea. And Pakistan and India too. I hope they all invade you. I hope they're all already undermining your economy and security. I support all their solid, very compelling claims on "your" territory.

Is this enough, or is there some form I need to go fill out? I wish to subscribe to your intimidation service.

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

We cannot allow a rape gap!

I realize that this is either some fancy-looking exercise that goes nowhere as cover for what actually happens; or a shoddy crypto con; but what possible justification would there be for coming up with a new gaza-specific stablecoin, if you thought that stablecoins were the correct answer, rather than one of the other ones that is already in wider circulation?

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

I think "What We Do in the Shadows" already did that villain.

Heh, they say "hallucination," you say "trap street."

I'm awaiting clarification on why all their arguments about why scraping is their god-given right don't apply when they are getting scraped.

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.