"...while maintaining the existing overall parity between the bad guys and the worse guys."

In reality, probably yes. But it is conceivable that a "last vulnerability" could be closed and "overall parity" would be broken permanently. The problem is that the bad guys continue to add new vulnerabilities for the worse guys to use, and that will likely accelerate with the proliferation of these very tools.

That is a remarkable take, and not in a good way. Not defending AI, just appalled by the disrespect for finding and fixing vulnerabilities. Finding vulnerabilities is a core part of closing them, it doesn't only matter when an attacker does it.

A lie is bad information provided intentionally. AI does not have intent.

Yes, there is a new contract created every month. Feel free to quote Italian conditions, but in the US a contract requires consideration, which occurs on a monthly basis.

In any case, it doesn't affect the ethics, and Netflix gives ample time for a customer to cancel renewals.

Silicon Valley.

What's interesting is that this article leads with "Peter Thiel". Why? It's just standard VC stuff.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
Linux literally is "repeating the past". Its very name is derived from the designs it copies.

"No year will ever be the year of linux on the desktop with this stupid attitude of throwing working code away."
LOL no, that's not it.

"And we are just letting it happen because why the fuck not?"

Who is "we"? You? Are you letting it happen?

"...our love of moral panics and knee-jerk reactions."

Like your post?

Nope. It simply renews every month (and that's a convenience, not a contract) unless you cancel. There is no contract beyond a month.

>you cant just unilaterally change a contract even with "30 days notice"

Whoosh. If the contract only lasts 30 days, you can change the terms for a future contract.

No conversation cannot be improved with more bigotry, right MAGA?

With the rise of MAGA, it seems there is more than that. SuperKendallism is pervasive.

This is not only true, it is the most important takeaway. AI has not created these two kinds of users, they have always existed.

"Religions generally accept wisdom from sacred texts."

This is false. Religions CREATE privileged texts, which they call "sacred texts" or scriptures, which contain stories that are fabricated. Religions do not "accept wisdom" from these created texts because religions create those texts.

Now, parishioners could be said to "generally accept wisdom from sacred texts." Perhaps that is what you meant. Religions are a mechanism to control people, scripture is a tool that is used.

Personally, I think the entire premise here is absurd. AI usage doesn't create two kinds of users, there were these two kinds of users before AI came into existence. Religion is particularly effective on one of those two kinds.

"... this CO scheme wouldn't be legal here in CA..."

It would not be legal in Texas either, but legal is what a judge says it is. Judges aren't there to find you not guilty.

Earlier in my life I had a friend whose father was a prosecutor. He claimed his father had never lost a case and couldn't understand criticism how that result was not something to brag about. Turns out his father was a personal friend of the judge that tried his cases and served as a temporary judge in that same court when the judge wanted time off. He thought this level of corruption was a point of pride. Texas, although likely occurs everywhere.

Speed limits are set to ensure a ready supply of people to fine. The more effective and automatic enforcement is, the larger a problem there is going to be with the public. Local government basically steals whatever money it wants while officially looking good to the voters by making the "bad guys" pay for things. That will end when the "good guys" get fines in the mail.

Society seems to be engaging in a race to ruin its infrastructure.

"...not that you should be speeding on public roads in the first place."

Why is that? Speeding is defined relative to an arbitrary value, if the state doesn't want speeding it should set those values properly. Speed limits are set to ensure speeding, not to improve public safety.