Seems like there needs to be a standard for identification much like we have for aircraft. Even more so really, given aircraft arenâ(TM)t going to be in flight for years.
I worked in a very popular bug bounty for a short amount of time. It's about as pure a meritocracy as you can get. Young folks from all over the planet were working very hard to find bugs and some of them did very well for themselves. I would say it's clear that the bug bounty gave them the foothold and the financial backing to start a career in security.
Only the dumbest assholes on the planet think you can survive solely on a bug bounty. However, if you run it properly (which is exceedingly difficult) you can get some real value from it while giving an opportunity for folks that are new to the industry a medium in which they can gain valuable experience and possibly launch a career.
What's the long term solution here? A person with a reasonable command of engineering principles could, over the course of 10 years and maybe $150k, develop a credible device for downing low/slow aircraft with off the shelf components. In 20-30 years the ability to develop bio-weapons at home is going to be materially better than it is today. In 100 years the ability to cobble together a nuclear device might be within the realm of the home gamer. Is this the beginning of the Great Filter? It seems untenable without borg-like control of each individual.
On initial release this system had an alarming number of security issues, but anyone publicly pointing them out (e.g. David Kennedy from TrustedSec) was generally marked as a conservative troll and not genuinely interested in the security of the system. I generated a shitload of 'anomalous activity' back in the day doing a little personal research and there was zero evidence of detection or responsive action. I'm sure security has improved over the years but I doubt this is the first incident.
> And he's the most lovely dog, but I would not pay this for a car repair with similar conditions - *might* fix it, far exceeds objective value, might happen again.
Sorta.
I think the size of the investment is coloring the decision here. What if it was a $75 treatment? Would anyone be morally opposed to funding experimentation then?
This is a confusing comment. Medicine has advanced, and many effective treatments were first validated for efficacy and safety through a clinical trial. That's really the only way we know how to do this at the moment. Of course many clinical trials have not had the desired effect and many have had a net negative impact on the patient. That sucks, but what alternative is there?
AGI is a bit of a red herring, so is the AI apocalypse.
It's reasonable to be concerned that 'AI' will do significant damage..stock market crash, utilities failure, biological catastrophe...without it taking over the world in a menacing fashion. And for that, it just has to get good enough at doing something that we trust it more than we trust each other. The fact that we don't really understand why it's good won't matter all that much.
Look at what's happening with Tesla right now. Software update designed to improve one behavior causes it to kamikaze road dividers and kill people. Nobody added that to the software, it was an emergent behavior. Same thing can and will happen as we expand the scope of control that systems of this nature have.
I graduated in 91 and it was the same then, too. Kids brought guns to school to shoot trap in gym class, showed off their butterfly knives at recess and nobody got hurt. I mean there were some righteous beat downs but they were always one on one and the fight stopped when someone quit or got knocked out.
Not sure when the gun safe trend started either. Nobody ever locked them up at home, or if they did the key was always on the top of the cabinet and ammo in the drawer at the bottom.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like there needs to be a standard for identification much like we have for aircraft. Even more so really, given aircraft arenâ(TM)t going to be in flight for years.
I worked in a very popular bug bounty for a short amount of time. It's about as pure a meritocracy as you can get. Young folks from all over the planet were working very hard to find bugs and some of them did very well for themselves. I would say it's clear that the bug bounty gave them the foothold and the financial backing to start a career in security.
Only the dumbest assholes on the planet think you can survive solely on a bug bounty. However, if you run it properly (which is exceedingly difficult) you can get some real value from it while giving an opportunity for folks that are new to the industry a medium in which they can gain valuable experience and possibly launch a career.
What's the long term solution here? A person with a reasonable command of engineering principles could, over the course of 10 years and maybe $150k, develop a credible device for downing low/slow aircraft with off the shelf components. In 20-30 years the ability to develop bio-weapons at home is going to be materially better than it is today. In 100 years the ability to cobble together a nuclear device might be within the realm of the home gamer. Is this the beginning of the Great Filter? It seems untenable without borg-like control of each individual.
On initial release this system had an alarming number of security issues, but anyone publicly pointing them out (e.g. David Kennedy from TrustedSec) was generally marked as a conservative troll and not genuinely interested in the security of the system. I generated a shitload of 'anomalous activity' back in the day doing a little personal research and there was zero evidence of detection or responsive action. I'm sure security has improved over the years but I doubt this is the first incident.
> And he's the most lovely dog, but I would not pay this for a car repair with similar conditions - *might* fix it, far exceeds objective value, might happen again.
Sorta.
I think the size of the investment is coloring the decision here. What if it was a $75 treatment? Would anyone be morally opposed to funding experimentation then?
This is a confusing comment. Medicine has advanced, and many effective treatments were first validated for efficacy and safety through a clinical trial. That's really the only way we know how to do this at the moment. Of course many clinical trials have not had the desired effect and many have had a net negative impact on the patient. That sucks, but what alternative is there?
So rather than fix the process just let people continue to die out of fear of fucking it up for everyone else? That's ridiculous.
Did you watch the video? She didnâ(TM)t exactly try to get out of the way either.
If I had to guess, I'd say 'eventual compliance' creates a survivorship bias that increases the average quality of available open source software.
AGI is a bit of a red herring, so is the AI apocalypse.
It's reasonable to be concerned that 'AI' will do significant damage..stock market crash, utilities failure, biological catastrophe...without it taking over the world in a menacing fashion. And for that, it just has to get good enough at doing something that we trust it more than we trust each other. The fact that we don't really understand why it's good won't matter all that much.
Look at what's happening with Tesla right now. Software update designed to improve one behavior causes it to kamikaze road dividers and kill people. Nobody added that to the software, it was an emergent behavior. Same thing can and will happen as we expand the scope of control that systems of this nature have.
I graduated in 91 and it was the same then, too. Kids brought guns to school to shoot trap in gym class, showed off their butterfly knives at recess and nobody got hurt. I mean there were some righteous beat downs but they were always one on one and the fight stopped when someone quit or got knocked out.
Not sure when the gun safe trend started either. Nobody ever locked them up at home, or if they did the key was always on the top of the cabinet and ammo in the drawer at the bottom.
It creates cashflow latency overhead.