As I understand it, in theory, there is no "secret" exchange over the network with passkeys, once they are initially set up (one side sends a challenge to decrypt, and the challenge is one-time use. The decryption all happens locally.) And so they aren't as vulnerable to phishing or other common ways to steal passwords (such as key loggers, which don't even involve the network.)
But in my opinion, the solutions that passkeys provide come with the costs that are being discussed here, and I haven't found the trade-off worthwhile.
>However, replacing a simple PID loop or PDH with AI? Not sure if the extra >complexity is needed
Laser guy here. It's a highly-non-linear search problem (so not great for PID until you are close), and human intuition is used in surprising ways. For instance, maybe the operator knows that one adjuster is particularly 'wonky' and drifts more than the others; this is discovered through trial and error. Believe it or not, some people seem to have "the touch", and others never seem to get it (I think it might just be a matter of patience - alignment can be boring as hell and some people find it frustrating.) To be trained, usually someone starts out by "shadowing" a more experienced person, but eventually people develop their own style that can be hard to fully verbalize.
I am curious if they could de-tune the system, ask the AI to hit a target, and get anything sensible. Because the AI would be relentless, I bet it might work better than expected...
"Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following? (Small business, Free enterprise, Capitalism, Socialism, Big business)"
So these terms are left as self-explanatory. In the US, "socialism" covers a huge amount of ground (from any government program at all, all the way to Soviet style communism.) So who knows what items people were picking.
One thing that is interesting, look at the gender and age splits in the above link for "socialism" and "capitalism" - 15-20 point divide between genders overall, and I bet the split is even more stark among young people.
I think you answered your own question - the economic incentives are all aligned to make the experience bad for the user, mediocre for the advertiser (who doesn't have a choice at the moment), and great for Google, at least in the short term.
Unfortunately for Google, the other AI companies hoovered up the Internet too, so Google's hard-to-reproduce scale is no longer the moat it used to be.
And unfortunately for us, the economic incentives to inject pervasive ads into LLM outputs are irresistible, so enshittification is guaranteed once search engines are abandoned.
"The borough also says visitors encounter its "Play Smart Rules" when entering the park, including a specific instruction: "Do not twist chains.""
So the town buys crappy swings, knowing full well that kids are going to spin them (who hasn't done this a million times as a kid?) Then they slap up a sign telling the kids not to do that. Basically entrapment.
Here's an idea for them: maybe the town shouldn't cheap out on unsafe equipment for children...
My company makes dangerous equipment like lawn mowers. Because of this, I have to go through training on how to design equipment to be safe.
And the rule is very clear. If there is any possibility of an issue, you need to redesign it so the problem can't happen, you need to put gaurds in place so the problem can't happen, or only if those two fail, are you allowed to put up a warning sign. That is an ordered list so if anything is possible in the previous step you cannot go to the next.
In this case a chain that can take twisting is obvious and so the sign won't protect them from liability should someone get hurt from twisting the chains.
You're both right. What you're describing is liability. A warning does not guarantee safety from liability suits, that's why the other options are preferable (only being a Chinese or outside-of-the-west manufacturer guarantees safety from liability suit).
But the problem with twisting chains is that it needs a warning.
And so both putting in the law, and arresting the kid, are a way to protect the borough, a government organization, from liability when something goes wrong.
If the town feels that arresting children is a good use of public money they that's their right. At some point the citizens have to actually care about how their town operates if they want it to get better. Most townspeople care about UX as much as f2p mobile shovelware developers.
I've always had a problem with Graeber's definition of exactly what a "bullshit" job is. Every time one is identified, the "well, akshually..." comes out, and often for defendable reasons.
Take "social media coordinator" - we had some young person at our Fortune 500 company have this position, which led to some eye rolls. But is it really "bullshit" if she keeps an exec from posting something embarrassing, which could damage the stock price? I guarantee you that companies have reasonable justifications for every position.
AI is more a tool that allows a productivity boost per employee, like all other automation tools (e.g. SolidWorks almost completely automated mechanical drawings, so drafting is not a thing any more - something I was told in high school, BTW, that would always be in demand...)
I sadly share this as a physicist. To be fair, sometimes this arrogance can be useful. I worked at the boundary between domains my entire career where there aren't "experts" per se. But yeah, barging into an established domain without some humility generally leads to embarrassment - especially Nobel winners (e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-belie...)
It's much easier to create a poison than a medicine. The things that would harm biological life vastly outnumber things that restore health. So just because Novartis didn't succeed at creating an incredibly precise and specific medication does not mean all the AI in the world can't make a crude bio-agent.
And yet we aren't extinct, whether by someone's design or accident. Heck we don't have significant deaths occurring over time due to biological poisons. Most deaths at still overwhelmingly via conventional weapons.
But in my opinion, the solutions that passkeys provide come with the costs that are being discussed here, and I haven't found the trade-off worthwhile.
reply