How about this framing: no one person can care about everything but it's important that everyone care about something.
You pushing back on computing makes the digital world a little better for the Ikea designer who doesn't see the magic and just wants to make figure out if the pizza place is still open. In turn, that designer makes sure there's a decent baseline for the design of your home, even when you don't want to think about it. Together, you both make room for the urban planner or chef or nurse, even if you don't think much about transit or gastronomy or healthcare....
Jails are the inverse of this scenario. But still, plenty of safeguards in the procedures and technical aspects of incarceration exist precisely because that happened occasionally with human prisoners and guards, too.
Imagine we have all the worst people in history in a jail. Machiavellian murders that desire to kill as many as they can. Not only will they kill, they will manipulate as many other people as they can into killing also.
How many of these people can you afford to let out?
Under your premise it seems to be all of them. Under my premise even letting a single one out is a tragedy.
GP seems to imply that should our view be true, then human jails should be empty by definition, because all prisoners are intelligent beings and would've eventually talked their way of it.
But this doesn't account for the fact that modern incarceration has built-in safeguards and mitigations based on centuries of cases of people talking, bribing or forcing their way out of prison, as well as getting outside assistance in forms ranging from lawyers to raiding parties equipped for demolition works. There are now procedural and technological means to prevent such incidents for happening, applied proportionally to the degree of risk.
Meanwhile, with AI, we're still at the point where everyone is assuming they can just lock the agent in a sandbox and prompt nicely to not poke at it too hard, and things will be fine. There's no multi-layered structural and procedural safeguards, and there's no recognition for the fact that AI operates faster than humans, and that quite likely it'll be smarter at this than average "jailer".
Yes, that's what I was trying to snarkily say: we've got a way to confine intelligent agents (humans) while allowing them some interaction with the operators and a tiny bit with the outside world. It mostly works too -- real-life jailbreaks are rare enough to be big news.
You're right that a (as-of-yet hypothetical) AI has different abilities, but it also has different weaknesses. It's straightforward to accurately log all of its behaviors, and you can even re-run it to see what it would do in myriad situations.
> AI has different abilities, but it also has different weaknesses. It's straightforward to accurately log all of its behaviors, and you can even re-run it to see what it would do in myriad situations.
In principle that sounds true, but your specific example was already disproven in practice. Look at the Hugging Face hack - the amount of logs collected is so massive, that no one is even approaching this without using LLMs to help sift through them. With current models we're already way past being able to keep up with the volume of behavioral logs, and that's for post-hoc analysis; for real time defense, we already rely on classifiers (read: weaker LLMs and different ML models) to do this job.
It’s also the main reason those microwaves are so gross!
Since it’s relatively thick, boiling solution sputters everywhere and is—-at best—-partially cleaned up by harried scientists. Use a big container and try not to overshoot the temp.
These are bizarre assertions. GNSS is one way to navigate, and GNSS is one way to synchronize time-of-day. Communications networks are full of devices that don't have, or use, any GPS receivers at all. NTP, WiFi, DOCSIS, DSL, leased lines, servers, core routers, switches, desktops and laptops are all things that won't even notice that GPS was unavailable.
The paper was posted on the 18th of June. I would guess that means they started writing the first draft in the winter of 2026, if not earlier. 2026 data obviously wouldn't be available then, or even now---we're only in September!
In fact, most data products take a few months to compile and distribute. The US will release its Q2 estimate of GDP at the end of September, for example; Statistics Canada is on a pretty similar schedule. Thus, 2025 data might not have been available when they started writing either. It's certainly possible to estimate things on your own, but now you need to show that a) your method of estimating GDP (energy prices, whatever) is valid and b) any effects you see aren't simply due to using different metrics.
In short, it just takes a while to do and write up research.
The APIs it's relying on to show you that information do implement some anti-fingerprinting mechanisms - things like available memory will be put into rough buckets rather than returning the exact amount you have.
That panel reconstructs what a pixel would send from your own browser values, locally, and never makes the request. NextDNS seeing nothing is the tool working exactly as designed.
reply