- 0 Posts
- 250 Comments
Third time?
This is the ninth time. Including certs for their repos and forums.
1·6 天前But I don’t see anywhere in this specific Colorado bill trying to restrict OS level features or go anywhere near open-source
Because the people proposing the bill don’t understand or know what open source is.
I guess my example “realization of open source” dialogue wasn’t in your face enough, eh?
This is about a single signal (kid/no kid) at the user-auth level, without slurping up PII and shipping it off into the ether.
You claim to be a developer, but seem to not understand the fundamental truth of “you can’t trust the user’s computer”. The proposed law, would make it law that operating systems have some mechanism to verify age. Now if it’s a law to guarantee the verification flag is available, then that would also mandate the mechanism be free from tampering, otherwise the law means literally nothing and is unenforceable.
So once they learn about open source, root access, jailbreaking, etc, those things will very quickly become illegal.
As I said in my other comment, this problem has been attempted with gaming client-side anti-cheat for decades now. There’s a reason most online games still are riddled with cheaters, despite anti-cheat software being near Orwellian in what they can do.
Age verification is nothing more than the new guise of forced online tracking.
And I will tell you this: the operating system is 100% where you want to do age verification.
Oh, what’s that you’re using? It’s Linux? Sure that’s fine, just make sure the age verification check works on it.
Wait, what do you mean you have “root access”? Why do you keep repeating “it’s my hardware and I own it”? You removed the age check system? You can do that! Hey, he’s not supposed to be able to do that!
Colorado proposes bill to ban open source operating systems
<Edit>Crap… I was right </Edit
As a parent, systems and web developer of both open source and proprietary software. This would single-handedly be one of the most damaging things to ever happen to the world of personal computing.
From a technical point of view, having OS-level verification is the least worst, and in my technical opinion, the best option.
It’s a horribly bad opinion. It’s the same old problem with client-side anti-chest. You can’t trust the hardware. If the user has full access to the computer, then they can do whatever they want with it. This is a core issue in security modelling. So what’s the answer? Try to lock down the system. This is why anti-cheat software, to play a video game, has more access to your computer’s hardware than you do as a user. Full access to every single file, data in memory, webcams, things on screen, etc.
What’s going to happen if it becomes mandated that age checks must happen in the OS? We’re going to get computers so locked down that you won’t be able to open a .txt file without some kind of authentication check.
No thanks. I’m happy to avoid every single age-check required service.
A mathematician in the 70s said, “hey what if this is how brains work?”
If you really want to be pedantic, the modern concept of neural networks was invented decades prior.
But in either case, ANN do follow the basic concept of how neurons work. That’s not even up for debate. Obviously biological neurons have way more going on, and there’s even evidence for “warm” quantum processing happening within each neuron in the microtubules. But the feed-forward signal mechanism is real, and ANNs are based on that concept.
Except the Neural Net model doesn’t actually reproduce everything real, living neurons do.
No idea what you’re saying here. But if I had to guess, you’re saying that “real brains, not artificial ones, create novel outputs”. And if that is what you meant, then congrats, you said nothing of value. The discussion was never about biological vs artificial neural network quality.
That’s not what an LLM is. That’s part of how it works, but it’s not the whole process.
Unlike LLM which is just fancy autocomplete.
You might keep hearing people say this, but that doesn’t make it true (and it isn’t true).
LLMs are extensions of the techniques developed for autocomplete in phones. There’s a direct lineage
That’s not true.
Silicon Power
They’ve been around for a long time, they’re decent.
The quotes are because “AI” doesn’t exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are “intelligent”.
And this is where you show your ignorance. You’re using the colloquial definition for intelligence and applying incorrectly.
By definition, a worm has intelligence. The academic, or biological, definition of intelligence is the ability to make decisions based on a set of available information. It doesn’t mean that something is “smart”, which is how you’re using it.
“Artificial Intelligence” is a specific definition we typically apply to an algorithm that’s been modelled after the real world structure and behaviour of neurons and how they process signals. We take large amounts of data to train it and it “learns” and “remembers” those specific things. Then when we ask it to process new data it can make an “intelligent” decision on what comes next. That’s how you use the word correctly.
Your ignorance didn’t make you right.
Does it run on something that’s modelled on a neural net? Then it’s AI by definition.
I think you’re confusing AI with “AGI”.
The only time I’ve ever really had issues with Nvidia drivers is when installing the meta package for CUDA (because it tends to include a previous version of the driver, which causes install/uninstall havok), or with laptops and hybrid graphics.
But the laptop issue is almost completely gone with newer distros like Bazzite.
nobody asking “wait why is the car storing all that data in the first place?”
<Louis Rossman enters the chat>
Remember when they ran ads suggesting that if independent mechanics had access to the car’s software that it would result in stalking and assault? Remember when they said the only way to keep people safe is to protect that data by only using “qualified” mechanic shops (aka dealers)?
Turns out all of that was a lie. Total shocker, I know.
1·21 天前Says the asshole throwing out accusations of csam because they don’t like being contradicted.
Don’t like being wrong, eh?
The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
No, the legal definition is this:
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hacking
So this wasn’t illicit, because the FBI publicly published the data. So the argument has to be made with “unconventional”. This is what I disagree on.
Think about it in any other way? So I’m just walking down the street… I see a house… I go open a door… I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that’s not mine. Put on some underwear that isn’t mine and leave some stains on the sheets…
That’s illegal. There’s a law for that. There are also laws that protect digital assets in a similar way, and they fall under Cybercrime.
Why don’t you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Calm down there, Epstein.
Just tell me you’ve been on Epstein’s Island… Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
You suck at rage baiting. I’m advocating for exposing more of the emails and not letting people refer to it as “hacking”, and you’re so enraged by someone disagreeing with you that you literally call that person “Epstein”. I know mental health care isn’t much of a thing in the US, but please find some help. For all our sakes.
It was there, doesn’t mean it was for you.
Look, I’m not arguing about whether this is illegal or not. I’m arguing about the literal definition of the term “hacking”.
It’s just like walking into a strangers house without permission where the door is wide open is technically illegal, but it can’t qualify as “breaking and entering”.
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
We can rule out “illicit” because the FBI published the data publicly. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by “unconventional”, which I don’t think qualifies here. A government agency published the credentials, which means no one had to do social engineering, sneak into an office, reverse engineer anything, or even guess a person’s birthday.
Now if this somehow went to court, a judge might rule that this qualifies as hacking, but my opinion is that it doesn’t.
I have a 1Gb connection. I work in software development. I live in a nice neighbourhood. My internet goes down all the time.