The amount of apologia exists for Musk actions is just mind boggling. It seems to me that people want all the good from the hype Musk brings, but if things go wrong - Why don't people think of the poor workers?
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. If people were so smart where were they when Musk was hyping autonomous vehicles being just around the corner for years? Or the fact that the board of directors kept raising his compensation to insane levels because he kept threatening them that he'll walk out? The company chose to do this. People didn't. Now that he is tanking the valuation, we don't need to separate out Tesla and Musk. They are one and the same.
Every power hungry maniac thinks their power of sycophancy is going to be better. If they had any shred of reflection they wouldn’t be working for this man.
They keep running experiments like free $50 in extra use credits or 2x usage outside certain windows where inference is very slow. You can’t help but think this is all a slowly boiling the frog experiment. Experimenting how much they can charge.
They're boiling the frog pretty quickly, honestly. The token usage has clearly been an issue since using Claude code from the beginning. It just blows through tokens
Laws will be passed to make it "safer". Just like it is happening with the id verification systems. Every image or video gen will require a watermark. Something visible which cannot be removed easily or hidden which can be detected and blocked. Access to models which do not comply will be made harder through id verification checks or something.
There will be some regulatory capture in between.
World will kick into gear only when something really bad happens. Maybe a influential person - rich or politician - fooled into doing something catastrophic due to a deepfake video/image. Until then normal people being affected isn't going to move the needle.
Verification needs to work the other way around, some kind of verifiable chain of trust for photos and videos from real cameras. Watermarking all generated media is impossible.
I don't really understand why this is so hard or why it wasn't just done from the get go.
Just have Apple and Google digitally sign videos and photos recorded from phones and then have Google and Meta, etc display that they are authentic when shown on their platforms.
You're talking about the metadata of the files, which can always be edited and someone will inevitably try to make software to do exactly that. Also, Adobe's proposal for handling generated content is exactly this and they're not able to get buy-in from other companies.
Edit the metadata in what way? It's a cryptographic hash.
If the bits that make up the video as was recorded by the camera don't match the hash anymore, then you know it was modified. That doesn't mean it's fake, it just means use skepticism when viewing. On the other hand the ones that have not been modified and still match can be trusted.
Essentially 0% of professional photography or videography uses "straight out of the camera" (SOOC) JPEGs or video. It's always raw photos or "log" video, then edited to look like what the photographer actually saw. The signal would be so noisy as to be useless.
Sure they could, but then you trim the video by 2 seconds, tweak the colors, or just send it over WhatsApp, which recompresses the file with its own encoder. The hash breaks instantly. Cryptography protects bits, but video is about visual meaning. The slightest pixel modification kills the hardware signature. Plus, it does absolutely nothing to fix the "analog hole" problem - a scammer can just point that cryptographically signed iphone camera at a high-quality deepfake playing on a monitor
I would assume whatsapp would read the hash and verify it when the video is chosen to be sent to someone, so the reciever would see that the video that was selected by the sender was indeed authentic. Assuming you trust meta to re-encode it and not mess with it.
As far as recording a monitor, I guess, but I feel like you can tell that someone is recording a monitor.
As far as editing, no it wont work in those cases, but the point here is not to verify ALL videos, but to have an easy way for people to verify important videos. People will learn that if you edit it, it won't be verified, so they will be less inclined to edit it if they want to make it clear it's an authentic video. Think like people recording some event going down on the streets etc or recording a video message for family and friends.
If AI video generation is going to get that good, don't you think it would be a good idea to have a way to record provably authentic videos if we need? Like a police interaction or something. There is no real reason to need to edit that.
Also, could a video hash just be computed every X seconds, and give the user the choice to trim the video at each of those intervals?
Hashing every X seconds is just a Merkle tree, the tech for that has been around forever. But cryptography only protects the container, not the semantic meaning inside it. If verifying a video requires spinning up this massive crypto infrastructure that can just be trivially bypassed with a hardware camera spoofer anyway, that defense is completely worthless for the mass market. Scammers would bypass it in their sleep.
It becomes a hard problem quickly when you introduce editing, and most photos and videos on social media are edited. I'm not sure how it would work. It seems more feasible than universal watermarks, though.
> Laws will be passed to make it "safer". Just like it is happening with the id verification systems. Every image or video gen will require a watermark. Something visible which cannot be removed easily or hidden which can be detected and blocked. Access to models which do not comply will be made harder through id verification checks or something.
i've thought about this off and on and how to implement it. Not easily, was my general takeaway.
or rather, it's easily to implement but you're in a adversarial relationship with bad actors and easy implementations may be easily broken
e.g. your certs gotta come from somewhere and stay protected, and how do you update and control them. key management for every single camera on every phone, etc.
On one hand he had "No new wars", he also was pretty clear on his disdain for Middle Eastern countries - the ones not giving him millions in bribes.
People knew that he was incoherent and inconsistent. He proved that during his first Presidency. So, I don't think it is a case of "not what people voted for". People are getting exactly what they voted for - chaos and incoherence.
As you said, Congress doesn't want to do anything due to elections. And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.
Choices beyond losing election requires either of these branches to act. Without that, wait for the next election.
> And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.
To be more specific, the SCOTUS has only declared one particular President's actions as always justified. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that they suddenly reverse this opinion as soon as someone from the other team becomes president.
You mean the guy who kept talking about bringing back jobs to US - jobs requiring Americans to screw iPhone parts - wasn't debating in bad faith, like you are doing here? I am shocked, I tell you. I am really shocked.
I understand Presidential pardons are abused but I wouldn't say at least this is not "both sides", this is worse.
For years there were corporate overlords lobbying and corruption. That was "both sides".
Now this "side" has been railing against corruption by the "other side" and how they are going to put every corrupt person in jail and most "transparent" government.
Turns out they are much worse. Don't even know how to be corrupt properly. Just blatantly corrupt. When corned keep doing whataboutism - forgetting that even if the "other side" was corrupt it doesn't mean they can be corrupt too. Worse yet they still get support from their base.
Make no mistake - this is making US a low trust society on par with a third world country.
That was the OP's intent -- it's meant to be sarcastic. That's why "both sides" was in quotes. It's a common form of argument: I can do (very bad thing) because you did (slightly bad thing).
Most likely scenario is that if it does something “unlawful” and found out - claim that “These machines are black boxes and they don’t know what went wrong. They will set up an investigative committee and find out.”
When shit hits the fan they are going to blame AI, but then not even use hand sanitizer. They will 100% be using OAI as a scapegoat, although I'd like to see the OAI goat stay and someone else run into the woods.
All Lawful Use is a tautology with fascists because they cannot break laws by definition.
Yeah, here's some examples of all these fascists doing exactly that:
Soviet Union - The show trials of the 1930s were conducted with full legal apparatus: confessions, judges, verdicts. Stalin's purges operated through legally constituted troikas. Entirely "lawful" by Soviet law.
East Germany (DDR) - The Stasi's surveillance and harassment programmes were codified in law. When the wall fell, many Stasi officers genuinely argued their conduct was legal under GDR statute: a defence that West German courts largely rejected.
Castro's Cuba - Mass executions after the revolution were conducted by legally constituted revolutionary tribunals. Castro explicitly defended this on legality grounds when challenged by foreign press in 1959.
Chavez/Maduro's Venezuela - Suppression of opposition media, jailing of political opponents was consistently defended as operating within Venezuelan law, which was progressively rewritten to make it so. Classic self-referential legality.
Mao's Cultural Revolution - The revolutionary committees had legal standing. Persecution of intellectuals and landlords proceeded through formal (if kangaroo) legal processes.
You should ask the language model that output this text the definition of 'whataboutism,' and if the comment you've posted responds meaningfully to the discussion at hand.
I think similar to how AI-generated comments are frowned upon, "this comment was generated by Ai" comments should also be frowned upon. It's really annoying to see a well written comment and replies that don't address the comment but just accuse the poster of having used Ai to generate the comment.
> you should ask the GP about his use of the word fascist on everything he doesn't like.
If mirror dot org actually existed, you might want to look into it, because your long list of examples has one related to 1930s Germany, and the rest has nothing to do with the political definition of "fascism"?
Your point about legality was valid, but you're undermining it with the sarcasm.
Nothing deep going on there. Fascism in modern informal parlance is a synonym for authoritarianism. Those who object most loudly to Stalin being called a fascist are usually themselves actually fascists, or stalinists. Everybody else gets it.
More like they will feed machine bullshit like WMDs exist in Fiji. My gut says so. My mom always believes me. Machine will call it out. Then they want overide. Machine will log it. Then they want an erase log button etc. Institutions and rules didnt fall from the sky. It evolved to damp the damage caused by such behavior.
It's sad that it took the highest court in the country to point out lack of professionalism and misconduct.
The judge took no personal responsibility.
> She told the court that this was her first time using an AI tool and she had believed the citations to be "genuine". She had no intention to misquote or misrepresent the rulings and that "the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source", the high court wrote.
She had one job. And that was to read the citations. Instead of owning up to the mistake of being lazy all she wanted to talk about "intentions".
The high court also took no responsibility.
> In its order, the high court said that "the citations may be non-existent, but if the learned trial court has considered the correct principles of law and its application to the facts of the case is also correct,
This line of reasoning is questionable and attempt to gaslight everyone. Judges cite other cases in their judgement. But if the junior judge had no clue that the references were fake what correct principles was she applying?
End of the day maybe the judgement is correct but this overall bullshit.
Given that this is happening all over the world people seem to have a convenient excuse - The AI made me do it.
Thats par for Indian judicial system. Simple civil cases run for several decades, the judges are all(yes everyone) is corrupt. Basically nothing works. It has been like this for several decades.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword. If people were so smart where were they when Musk was hyping autonomous vehicles being just around the corner for years? Or the fact that the board of directors kept raising his compensation to insane levels because he kept threatening them that he'll walk out? The company chose to do this. People didn't. Now that he is tanking the valuation, we don't need to separate out Tesla and Musk. They are one and the same.
reply