Taking care of them was historically about calorie and nutrientmaxxing. Subsidized calories have worked too well, worldwide, and there's no response to it within the current Overton window.
Yep, I remember playing everything without a 3D card and then being completely blown away when I got my Voodoo2 and all the pixelation and jerkiness was suddenly gone. I left the little "3DFX" splash screen enabled for a while there just because I was so enamored with the whole experience.
Valve was working on TF2.. but it took years to be completed. It started as a more serious military shooter and became the lovely cartoon version later.
>These systems are not accessible via the internet.
How would you know? Are you verifying them? SCADA systems weren't intended to be online, but that didn't stop critical infra for power plants, etc. to show up online. The convenience is too great to not try to remotely maintain them 'securely' & the assurance of airgaps is technical and expensive to get right.
Besides, are you considering the addition of modern AI to these 'offline' systems - factories, power, national weapons? You can get frontier models in a fraction of a rack today, who knows tomorrow. The organizations running these systems want in on the technological possibilities of AI, too.
Not to be a doomer about all this or anything, but there's a lot of evidence technologically superior entities dominate technologically inferior ones. So our home countries are in a Red Queen's Race to keep up, which is why adding "local" or "offline" AI to these systems seems probable. Again, airgaps are hard to maintain. It is within the realm of possibility that what's offline today is accidentally or intentionally networked tomorrow.
Yeah that's a fair point. Best practices and actual practices sadly don't seem to correlate that much in the real world.
As far as security is concerned, things like hospital equipment, traffic control signalling systems, weapons arsenals and bioengineering medical labs should not be connected to the internet and should be designed in such a way that a human is required in the loop at all times. And shouldn't use AI to function in any way.
But yeah, fair point that a lot of organisations will ignore that in favour of "look how easy internet access makes controlling this thing" or "AI is so cool", forgetting how badly it leaves them at the mercy of their enemies (AI or otherwise).
> It’s fair to ask if the harm they cause is worth the good they do.
Researcher disclosures, even with POCs, have moved the industry to action incumbents would have rather buried. I’m thinking of CPU and memory exploits, and stuff like log4j, as examples.
Frontier AI is enabling the cyber arms race more than anything past, and certainly more than some bot slowly crawling web servers for old vulnerabilities.
If we’re talking harm, it should be in the broader context of internet history, imo.
Ok, but there is a massive difference between "I hammered my own CPU and found a bug that affects everyone" and "I hammered THE ENTIRE INTERNET and found some poor persons website that is not super secure and then I snitched on them to their ISP".
The first is a lot more legal and ethical than the second.
They didn't hammer the entire internet. That would be like a multi-terabit DDOS. In contrast, the scanner in question sent a trickle of web requests for old vulns, nearly-innocuous at this point.
Fear & the danger aren't the same. anyway, I'll let it go.
It’s a fact that these scanners send unauthorized requests to servers whose owners did not consent to scanning.
If we think this is acceptable, which of the following is also acceptable, and if some is not, where is the difference:
1) Detecting the scan and notifying the ISP of the scanner that they are abusers
2) Notifying law enforcement and filing a formal complaint
3) Implementing passive defense measures and responding with a reverse slow loris attack where you trickle 1 response packet per minute down the pipe to attempt to DoS the scanner. But only to prevent them from accidentally hitting some innocent third party’s homemade wiki system that deletes content on GET requests. Not with any malice, just to help prevent harm to others.
4) Implementing active defense where you return progressively more hostile response starting with zip bombs and ending with whatever sota cyberweapon latest AI can give you. But only to shut down the scanner and not cause any damage what so ever. Simply to check if their security is up to par. You would of course report any detected vulnerabilities to the ISP of the scanner, to prevent criminals from using the same.
5) Actively responding with a scan of your own to any incoming scans.
It's wild to see all these people clowning on truck owners... and then say they are going to buy two 5090's for local AI even though they know it's less efficient than a cloud and don't necessarily need the privacy aspect of it... but want to do it just "cuz" . The hypocrisy here is amazing.
It's also increasingly appearing to be the case that checking out yourself is adverse selection.
People with money have others shop for them, or ship to their house. The checkouts are for those who labor in that system who must now submit to the panopticon.
If you stumble into a big retailer like Walmart or Home Depot now yourself, it's like you crossed a zero-trust boundary. Security guards, motion-activated cameras that play sounds and nag you to remind you you're surveilled, manned turnstiles to stop door crashes with loaded carts -- all these adversarial controls suggest you're now in the wrong customer channel.
> I think people who are opposed to them would agree with this, people who are in favor of guns would be alarmed by this.
Bizarrely, I think it comes out backwards. In this article, the comments are surprised that Waymo's gun detection led to someone contacting authorities - it's not over guns, but that it was "young people" with guns, which means they can't use generalizations, there have to be bespoke solutions unique to every individual, calling the police to assess on potential threats is too broad.
The gun crowd would neither use taxis broadly to carry weapons, nor do so in the manner of the "juveniles" found in the article. Generalizing, they're well-versed in the minutiae of gun transport laws and more or less anticipate law enforcement contact, whether inadvertent or from Karens.
The winner of classroom tech is classroom tech vendors, not students, not collective test scores.
reply