> Never thought I'd say this but OpenAI is the 'open' option again.
Compared to Anthropic, they always have been. Anthropic has never released any open models. Never released Claude Code's source, willingly (unlike Codex). Never released their tokenizer.
I'm tired of words being misused. We have hoverboards that do not hover, self-driving cars that do not, actually, self-drive, starships that will never fly to the stars, and "open"… I can't even describe what it's used for, except everybody wants to call themselves "open".
Penalties don't work for government agencies. Taxpayers would pay for it and it doesn't act as an incentive.
The way to fix it is to empower one government agency to do aggressive pentesting against every other agency, hospitals, banks, infrastructure, and big corporations, with salaries matching the private sector. Impose a legally-enforced deadline to fix any issues, with a fine (for private actors) or demotion of the guy in charge of infosec (for state agencies).
Forget compliance checklists, KPMG "audits" and all that crap, just have government-sponsored hackers trying to get into everything like an attacker would.
France seems to have had a ton of government hacks in the past year at various levels, so it's sorely needed.
I agree with the premise that SSII audits are useless, but your solution sounds like bandaid on a cancer. The real solution solution is stop this surveillance machine madness!
I understand that identity is required for property deeds and bank accounts for tax reasons and that should 100% not be online. But for the rest, it should be entirely outlawed to collect personal information beyond what's necessary for the service, including for government agencies.
Make healthcare (really) free => no social security database to hack. Give me back humans in offices for taxes and drivers licences => no ANTS database to hack. etc.
Er? social security covers more than just healthcare and the issue with on-line data in context of healthcare is patients' history, which i) is sensitive and ii) needs to be shared among health care providers.
Tough luck, i've never used any machine learning in my life (that i know of). AI tools are part of the same problem, the same techno-fascism i was decrying in my comment. I'm just curious how you could even think i was using AI????
You don't seem to realize the difference between those 2.
> The way to fix it is to empower one government agency to do aggressive pentesting against every other agency, hospitals, banks, infrastructure, and big corporations, with salaries matching the private sector. Impose ...
And now you've got private people empowered to attack specific government officials. In fact, that's their job. Btw: you forgot to specify "in public", and that needs to be how it works, otherwise it will just result in officials attacking this security agency. Oh, AND you're giving government officials an obvious point of attack: "salaries matching the private sector".
> Forget compliance checklists, KPMG "audits" and all that crap, just have government-sponsored hackers trying to get into everything like an attacker would.
You mean forget the way even the dumbest of the dumb can "provide security"? Do you think government officials in France got their position based on their IQ?
Of course this is the only way it can work, but this needs a very un-French form of government to get it to work.
> this needs a very un-French form of government to get it to work
I'm usually not one to defend french culture, but i believe your interpretation is wrong. What went wrong in this case is the americanization of the french administration: make everything complex, remove all local government branches and workers who can help you, remove every sensical administrator from their position, ignore all the privacy laws that were passed after Vichy and the nazi/IBM databases, "just make all the NUMÉRISATION".
The french government didn't have a proper national ID system until the nazi administration (Vichy) who invented the CNI and the Ausweis. There was strong sentiment against this well into the 70s and the Loi Informatique et Libertés, and it's only the more recent startup generation that started undoing all our ancestors hard fought battles against data collections/centralization.
Someone(s), somewhere, is paid "big bucks" to be in charge.
That's the person we should charge. If they cannot be charged for this kind of fuck-ups, then they should not be paid anything for simply rubber-stamping anything going over their desk. A simple machine could do their job.
If it’s related to compliance? Yeah I think that’s a pretty dangerous culture to have. Compliance requirements need owners who will ensure standards are met. If they don’t do their jobs, then they should face the consequences for the harm they allow.
i'll speculate further: it could've been on the dismiss notification code, and when you delete the app the OS dismisses the removed app's notifications, triggering the same code path.
in this case as per reporting, defendant removed the app. unclear if they first dismissed them.
Blaming "profiteering and ever-increasing growth" is way too easy.
Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
Why do you think that is? Hint: taxing people buying food, which is getting worse and worse, while the top 0.01% gets more and more rich and keeps making it worse, is maybe not the solution people should embrace that you think it is...
An easier path would be to stop subsidizing the core of what is making junk foods to begin with. For that matter, at least in the US, having individual states require limitations of importing pre-processed goods could help too.
I've thought that it might be an idea for more states to require at least half of all beef and chicken to be imported into the state in at least half-carcass form. This would incentivize local farming, and local processing, reducing the more centralized processing and the environmental impacts could be further reduced in a lot of ways. That's just for meat.
Forcing insurance company accounting to average to single-payer modals and limit coverage combinations to no more than 3 choices across the nation could help with another part. Refactoring all federally funded insurance (medicare/medicaid/va/federal-employees) into a non-profit insurance corp that does likewise and any private company can also buy policies from would help to. Finally, establish "part time" work as no more than 10 hours a week averaged per 4 week window. Then require all employers to provide medical insurance for all workers that meets what the npo insurance provides.
The recent changes to USDA food guidelines are a step in the right direction, mostly... but there's still room to improve. Education in and of itself should improve dramatically. For that matter, actually having schools "make" most of their food instead of relying on premade/packaged goods would be a massive step in a right direction. Have every student participate in meal preparation at least a few hours a week as part of school work would help a lot.
I'd like to see some incentivization for more companies returning to a dividends model that includes employee profit sharing as part of said formula. I think this would do a LOT to shore up the middle class again.
Sorry, just went off on a total tangent... hitting reply anyway, but don't take anything too serious/deep... these thoughts are kind of always lingering in the back of my mind... I've just never been in a position to actually act on any of them politically.
Thanks for a thoughtful and longer-form reply. All of these ideas absolutely make sense - and their challenges and compromises could be worked on, of course.
But, even starting to think about each of them, I can't escape the frame of the current socio-economic structure, where short-term profits currently trump all, and influence of the aforementioned "0.01%" (or whatever we call it) is direct, heavy and effective, and all of that brought us here to a large extent in the first place.
In such a reality of ours, these kinds of initiatives don't go far - and even if surfaced in the media, there is a significant portion of population who would be very strongly against them, due to how opinions have been shaped and polarised over past decades.
It does seem almost impossible from current perspective.
Cool, you can fix the wealth inequality. But you also need to fix the excessive consumption of beef, fuel, and every other CO2-emitting good, whether consumed by you or by the "top 0.001%". You can't use "wealth inequality" as an excuse to delay action on climate change. Those goods' consumption needs to go down.
Fuel is trickier and requires investments and a transition period, but a beef tax would be trivial, and there are infinite substitute goods available.
They’re blaming entities with power. E.g. 90% of the US have no impact on policy evidenced by there being no correlation between their policy preferences and real policy (2011 Princeton study).
> Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
Is the idea to increase the VAT or something? The taxes on consumption?
Okay, so how would this work? You increase these taxes so that the bad consumers don’t travel for pleasure (just companies for business). Eventually people just buy what they need, like food which is presumably decently locally sourced, enough clothes to not freeze or be indecent. You’re still left with gas for commuting to job because people live an hour from work not out of choice but because of real estate prices. And what are in the stores are Made in China or Vietnam because that’s how the global market works; cheap shipping from cheap countries.
But these taxes would organically change all of that?
The usual narrative conveniently focuses on how Joe Beergut is causing problems by driving to work. And that this is how taxation should work; individual income, individual consumption, individual taxes. The more and more “libertarian”, the more the narrative slide towards taxes on income, taxes on consumption, and eventually just a flat tax because that is “fair”. But that seems to leave the big blindspot of corporations and individuals that might own fleets of trucks that of course tax the road infrastructure—no taxes for them?
But what headway could be made if the externalities were all caused by Joe Beergut. Libertarians and the environmental narrative might agree.
There are many different groups of anti-AI people with different beliefs.
This attempt to "reframe and reclaim" (here, paraphrased: "significant existential risks from AI is actually marketing hype by pro-AI fanatics") is a rhetorical device, but not an honest one. It's a power struggle over who gets to define and lead "the" anti-AI movement.
We may agree or disagree with them but there are rational anti-AI arguments that center on X-risks.
>There are many different groups of anti-AI people with different beliefs.
See my other comment. I qualified what I said while the comment I replied to didn't, so it's weird that this is a response to me and not the prior comment.
>here, paraphrased: "significant existential risks from AI is actually marketing hype by pro-AI fanatics"
If we're talking "dishonest rhetoric", this is a dishonest framing of what I said. I'm not saying this is inherently intentional marketing hype. I'm saying there is a correlation between someone who thinks AI is that powerful and someone who thinks AI will benefit humanity. The anti-AI crowd is less likely to be a believer in AI's unique power and will simply look at it as a tool wielded by humans which means critiques of it will simply mirror critiques of humanity.
reply