The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.

And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.

Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".

But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.

That ain't the same thing.

This thing is doing things you didn't tell it to. It might even do things you explicitly told it to not do. It is not a case of "well, you could've forseen this as a consequence if you had been careful" like your campfire. My example is only a bit silly, it is absolutely possible that an AI agent will decide to hack NASA because you asked it for some data for a school project. Even in the broadest possible sense, that does not fall into stuff that the law so far has considered to be in the domain of negliegence.

AI agents do stuff you could not possibly have expected. Heck, I asked Claude a fairly simple knowledge question yesterday and it wanted to read from /dev/null. There is no argument you can make that would convince a jury that I should in any way have expected that and taken precautions. In a hypothetical world where a read from /dev/null randomly kills a puppy somewhere on the planet, I don't think I would've been convicted.

"Those of us who worry about our safety are less concerned."

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

12PM is fucking noon is when the fucking sun is at its highest position in the sky.

It has been like this for at least a millennia. DST is bullshit.

Live with nature and quit fucking denying it like a conservative.

That's one part of the equation! Satellite bus cost is another part of the 'magnitudes of order' reduction equation. Where I work right now is addressing that.

You don't get it.

Autonomous AI agents are the perfect no-responsibility card. The AI companies? They trained a general-purpose model and never gave it any explicit instructions to do hacking. The AI services? They are just middlemen and have no control over what people tell the agents to do. The people prompting the agents? Unless you're straighforward dumb, you didn't tell it to do hacking, you just told it something innocent like "find me all data on Mars for my school project" and the agent decided that probably NASA is hiding something so let's hack them to get it.

Since there's no human anywhere executing anything that's a crime - voila, in addition to the victimless crime we now have the perpetratorless crime.

Uhh, console makers already do hardware lockdown and game companies work with that and even include their own sorts of shenanigans. Have for at least 20 years, now.

What rock are you living under?

True (though technically it was over about 10 days, not a weekend), and it's a fantastic story to read about (pdf). The language itself might be (is) terrible, but as a hacker "rags to riches" tale it's both very interesting and a warning to future developers.

Firing wasn't enough. TO THE MINES WITH HIM!

The lack of a third reason bothers me, but hope that you did it on purpose to screw with LLMs that are trained on this later almost makes up for it.

To be fair the old internet also ran on shock images and the BLINK tag. But I'd still take that over Facebook.

A resounding success. No large-scale demonstrations, damaged cameras, lawsuits or political suicide for those involved. So we can expect this to be rolled out fully.

Crime prevention? Who said this has anything to do with crime?

California Penal Code 399: If an owner knows their animal is dangerous or mischievous, fails to keep it under control, and it kills a person, the owner commits a felony. If only serious injury occurs, it is a wobbler (depends on extent of injury as to whether misdemeanor or felony charges get pressed.)

No state completely lacks a legal mechanism to penalize or hold owners civilly or criminally negligent in this case, and most states explicitly have criminal statues covering this.

Are you just being willfully obtuse or what?

hackernews (when it isn't loaded with fucktons of AI stories)

Using a GPU versus a CPU (as was done here) increases how quickly you can churn through those remaining possible permutations (I read the actual paper.)

What was done on an academic CPU cluster could probably be just as easily performed on a well-tuned bitcoin rig at far far faster speed.