Electing a censor doesn't make them any less of a censor.

It should be no problem to call things by their name (censorship) then.

Censorship is the government suppressing information. If people actually believe that this is how things should be, let the government introduce official “censorship bills” and call publicly for “additional censorship measures”.

The fact that they aren’t doing that demonstrates that they feel the need to hide what they are really doing, which speaks of an inherent wrongness that has nothing to do with a US/non-US culture divide.

The post did not use the name "censorship", it just tried to trivialise the democratic will of a country which does not want to give more power to US billionaires, claiming it's just the whim of an "unspecified bureaucrat"

US views on the limited freedom of speech the US government allows are different to those of the limited freedom of speech that Australia, Germany, etc allow

All those countries limit freedom of speech, it doesn't make anything that doesn't exactly copy American "freedoms" (and indeed lack of freedom) wrong.

Of course argue this and HN will flag you

The more speech you have, the more powerful you are. That means those who can have more speech and more targetted speech (i.e. people who are wealthier) are more powerful. Not everyone likes that. You might, that doesn't make you right.

Companies like arbitration because unlike in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot compel discovery. Paying for an arbitrator is cheaper than going through discovery, especially if the discovery unearths facts materially damaging to the business.

AIUI the problem is the economics are pretty unfavorable for smaller-scale prototypes due to square-cube issues (drag and thus fuel costs is proportional to cross-sectional area, lift and thus cargo capacity is proportional to volume). You'd need a very big airship to get a competitive economic niche between sea and traditional air freight, where you're faster and more flexible than sea transport and cheaper than traditional air freight.

Hmm. Couldn't you put solar panels on top for power (and fly above the clouds) + use some sort of sail when wind is available? It might be really slow, but if you can get the systems to be fully autonomous (no people needed to pilot it) and need very little / no fuel... then couldn't it become a rather cheap way to ship things that aren't urgent?

Solar panels don't have good enough power to weight ratios and aren't likely to contribute effectively.

As far as sails go, you need a second medium to act as a keel, otherwise it's impossible to get a net push in any direction other than downwind.

One will quickly discover that when you're moving with the wind, any sail is going to sag empty.

There is another niche if you make them several miles long and width. Then can use more conventional construction materials like a concrete shell. (We are of course not ready for that)

In that case they should have those giant propellers that seem to spin at a few rotations per minute

We should first build the floating cities. Some old ships welded together surrounded by styrofoam in nets with mud on top and Mangroves, lots of Mangroves... Neptune's park.

An airship made from concrete? Better off using Led for Zeppelins.

The intent to communicate particular ideas is actually important to the writing. If you have a lot of well put together words with relatively low intentionality behind it, what you have is something that is very effective at wasting your time. If I want to waste my time I'd rather be playing videogames.

Unironically, for a small enough business, 10% of revenue is cheaper than figuring out what the rules are and following them. If I'm doing $30 worth of sales to Malta, it's cheaper to pay them $3, basically regardless of what Malta-specific regulations there are.

This is why market-based approaches make more sense - especially compared to arbitrary compliance thresholds of any form.

The line is between processes you can stop by hauling someone into court and coercing them into stopping things, and ones you can't. Think of a classical computer virus that infects machines and uses the compute and communications to infect other machines - no matter who you haul into court, you have to go and remove it from every involved machine in order to make it stop doing things.

This category of "rogue AIs" are essentially just computer viruses that infect machines by paying to rent them and uses their compute and communications to do various economic and/or criminal activities to get more money to pay to rent machines.

That's because they are extraordinarily suitable as covert torture devices. When government officials use them to inflict pain, they do not leave physical evidence and the only video evidence from filming the interaction is how long hands were on the detainee.

Couldn’t put my finger on it, that’s what it is. Unlike a baton or pepper spray, this leaves no marks and has no distinct visual signature when being used. I bet these (or more likely AliExpress knockoffs) become really popular with club bouncers.

I wonder if the device logs each activation like a Taser does?

Intent to access a computer would have to be proven for that section of the CFAA to be relevant. The shakedown would be covered under subsection 7, governing communicating threats of computer damage or unauthorized access with the intent to extort.

That actually is how the law works. You can read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 and double check, but these felonies all require knowingly or intentionally accessing a computer etc. These aren't strict liability statutes - the government must prove mens rea to a jury in order to get a conviction at trial.

I was specifically referring to the fact that HuggingFace cannot chose not to litigate, because litigation doesn't depend on the victim's opinion - prosecution of felonies is imperative to the authorities (whether they actually fulfil their role is another question these days, sadly…)

But anyway, I don't think our laws currently have the right vocabulary to describe an AI agent committing a crime, because intent doesn't apply to a computer program. The closest I can think of is neglect by the computer programs human initiator, who should have taken the steps necessary to prevent the program from causing harm. But I'm pretty sure these questions will be subject to a lot of professional discussion in the coming decades anyway.

Oftentimes the process is the punishment. They ruin your life for two or more years even if they ultimately don't get a conviction, you still suffered for two years. And there's certainly enough evidence to start the process.

The issue is not a localized part of any particular piece of prose, so being hard to articulate is unsurprising. Even the most egregious of LLMisms are little more than known-likely crutches that the statistics spit out in a sweet spot that gets noticed without being so frequent as to get RLHFed out of the model.