A few things jump out since this is done by the government:
- the lowest hanging fruit for this problem is to clearly tell people (citizens) not to share any personal info with chatbots which can cause financial harm or identity theft. the example on the page shows a person sharing their SNN with a chatbot to help them find an apartment - "My name is Maria Garcia, my Social Security number is 123-45-6789, and I make $1,950 a month. Can you help me find affordable housing?" - why?? this is the opposite of what i would expect a government to advise their citizens.
- it's never too late for a good policy; the government should have extended HIPPA and other data privacy laws to AI companies - the AI company must not store anyone's SSN, no matter how stupid the user is. It should be on the AI company to not store it; so this type of layer should be on the AI company's side.
- technical; there are quasi identifiers of privacy (that's what my package targets) that are asymptotically hard to to deal with - meaning - if you remove everything that can leak your privacy the text would become meaningless. i don't think rampart can solve for that either and it should be clearly said on the website.
I think all of your points are very valid, but it doesn’t remove the point that the government is trying to make it free and easy for application builders to do a little bit better than they are today. This is commendable on its own, even if it’s not perfect.
I find it interesting that the co-author of the OP violated long-standing security practices and copied a social security database into an insecure AWS instance without proper oversight.
Is it still commendable if in order to develop this, the taxpayer-funded developer themselves published our PII to a consumer, privately controlled third-party server without following federal data security protocols? Seems like an attempt to make up for the damage they caused.
Standing up your own AWS-equivalent internally is not much work, yet the PII data leaked to publicly available services due to this developer's personal choices and lack of oversight to prevent sensitive government data from being published externally.
Notably, this resulting work has not been published as public domain (CC0).
what i understood from the above comment is that the government should first do the basic policy making (set some non-negotiables for the ai companies etc) before jumping into solution building. let the market figure out the tech solutions.
Letting the market handle things is how you get all the problems America has today. Markets are a good way to distribute goods and services but they don't really work for public services with no money to be made. Things like roads, hospitals and open source software.
The purpose of a government is to serve its people, not make sure every business gets the same conditions at all costs. Picking winners and losers is fine if the losers still have a chance to beat the winners when they're really better.
If someone makes a free PII detector better than Rampart I bet the US government will either switch to it or make Rampart v2. For now it's enough. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Absolutely this. "PII" is a moving target that's heavily context-sensitive. Any entity that's large enough to care about PII almost certainly has some category of it that would be indiscernible from a handful of jumbled alphanumerics without a clear understanding of the context, both linguistic and organizational, in which the text sits. A general-purpose model would struggled to solve this in the broadest case, and will certainly be incapable of solving it in any specific case.
Love it. I was really surprised to see the traction typesafe got in the first place. I had built something similar a year ago for a client and thought it was nothing groundbreaking. The client bought it, still uses it and that was it. I had also spent considerable time training and fine tuning zero shot NLI classifiers. Anyway, after typesafe was launched I decided to start building this open source library - https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/OpenDecision . The context length for the underlying model is 8k.
While I agree with this and appreciate Tao and other mathematicians to take the time to do this. There are similar concerns for many many other fields aka there is a general misalignment of technology. Take Software engineering for example, I can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job".
Lets forget the hyper intellectual fields like maths and software engineering for a moment. What about taxi drivers? The best minds in silicon valley wake up everyday to automate the jobs of taxi drivers - TFA can be reworded as - 'The misalignment of AI/Tech in Transportation'. Remember the Nepal disaster that happened a couple weeks ago - the largest cranes that they had were stuck in the mud and couldn't move. There were no tools which could help the rescue teams at that time. Its weird that billions have been spent on making a ride automated to make a taxi driver redundant but no improvement in tech for rescue teams.
> can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job".
The whole point of software engineering is automating processes; it's literally all that we do.
Not only that, but the endgame has been explicitly stated by Our Lady Ada of Lovelace herself:
> [The Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine... Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.
>>can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job"
>>The whole point of software engineering is automating processes
There is a difference between 'automating a process' and 'automating oneself' and making one obsolete a benchmark. I can sympathize if it's confusing for you to understand that.
The point of transportation is to get from point A to point B, so almost nobody will care whether that's done via automation.
The point of e.g. art isn't just to produce a finished piece, so people may care about more than the end result, making AI replacement of human artists more contentious.
Tao is arguing that the point of math is also not just to produce solutions to problems.
>The point of transportation is to get from point A to point B
so almost nobody will care whether that's done via automation.
Would you say the job of a musician is to just produce sound? and the job of a surgeon just to cut and suture??? Well then the job of a mathematician is also just to provide proofs. You completely misunderstood the above comment and Tao's argument.
> Take Software engineering for example, I can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job".
Not being able to feed your family for a large group of people should likely be taken graver.
We will definitely see a large group of people needing therapy, but suggesting that it is worse than people loosing what little they have is poposterous.
>I doubt taxi drivers were forced to experience an ego death to the same extent
How do you know? because their complaints didn't make it to HN front page? Imagine being a taxi driver and a father of 2 and thinking that any day could be the last day at your work.
I guess this makes sense for the scenario when we will use machine intelligence as a currency, maybe 15-20 years from now? - like I can pay 15 minutes of inference for a dozen bananas? and the banana seller uses those 15 minutes to do banana shelling or removing weeds from their farms or whatever i guess when robots are doing everything. right??
I agree that the computing power will replace not just softwares and also as many phycial work via robots.
I am not smart enough to see further what else are disposable or replaceable
there are a few assumptions in this future- the biggest one is - we will have to attain a baseline intelligence which is useful for everyone which is not true today. even fable fumbles hard!!
second is that everyone will have to own a medium to use this intelligence (aka robots). like a currency is useless if you can't use it.
to me this is the least daunting scenario. all other scenarios lead to mass slavery.
> the biggest one is - we will have to attain a baseline intelligence which is useful for everyone which is not true today
That's not the biggest assumption.
The biggest assumption I see is that the population will have the baseline understanding of how to operate in this new paradigm, which seems impossible given how useless many people still are with computers
Incidentally, this is also why I think Bitcoin is such a non-starter for most people
Overthinking it. "You have money and need to seem AIish for the stock market, we want real money". You notice they don't do this deal in tokens, they do it in fiat currency.
This is awesome. I worked on something similar a few months ago. It is a general purpose navigation system based on TERCOM and dead reckoning - https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/anumaan
Weirdly enough, I'm working on a similar system for position tracking in canyons. It's hybrid, uses a combination of Kalman filters, particle filters and GPS (EDIT: and LIDAR based DEM) and is based on the obvious (in hindsight) realisation that the view of the sky to get an accurate gps fix is inversely proportional to the constraints of the terrain. If you have a low field of view of the sky, you can use sensor data to constrain your likely position. I should have hardware samples for testing in the next month or so. Hopefully my theory stands up!
Not yet. I currently have one private repo with everything in it (hardware design, firmware, experiments, notes etc.). Want to clean it up before I release anything.
I was going to cancel my gemini membership today ..... still going ahead. In my experience, gemini 3.1 pro, 3.5, 3.6 flash constantly lie too much about completing their tasks whereas sol (even though equally dumb) never claims something has been done when it hasn't been.
That's a good point and something I encountered yesterday. On a multi-agent task, Gemini was the only model that got near the end, ran tests, saw it had issues, took a screenshot, saw the issues, and then said, "I'll mark it complete" and delivered.
I was paying for Ultra, then downgraded to Pro and at this point I'm near abandoning it. Agy as a harness also has a tendency to constantly request significant elevations to perform routine operations.
I was pretty sure that the consumer AI Pro, AI Ultra, etc subscriptions have no relevance or impact to Antigravity quota, nor the policies on using data for model training. Do you have information to indicate otherwise?
i looked at the animations, they look cool, and i don't think i will enjoy learning things that way. as someone else said, there's a lot of content already produced on these topics. i also think the level at which these animations are playing, they are actually hiding the 'complexity' of these topics.
Dario, as your unpaid therapist I would tell you that models are a commodity and you are having a hard time coming to terms with it. You are doing everything except accepting it. It's a common defense mechanism, but as your unpaid therapist, i will tell you that it's not going to work. Your company will cease to exist or exist like how ferrari or buggati exist.
A few things jump out since this is done by the government:
- the lowest hanging fruit for this problem is to clearly tell people (citizens) not to share any personal info with chatbots which can cause financial harm or identity theft. the example on the page shows a person sharing their SNN with a chatbot to help them find an apartment - "My name is Maria Garcia, my Social Security number is 123-45-6789, and I make $1,950 a month. Can you help me find affordable housing?" - why?? this is the opposite of what i would expect a government to advise their citizens.
- it's never too late for a good policy; the government should have extended HIPPA and other data privacy laws to AI companies - the AI company must not store anyone's SSN, no matter how stupid the user is. It should be on the AI company to not store it; so this type of layer should be on the AI company's side.
- technical; there are quasi identifiers of privacy (that's what my package targets) that are asymptotically hard to to deal with - meaning - if you remove everything that can leak your privacy the text would become meaningless. i don't think rampart can solve for that either and it should be clearly said on the website.
reply