Just curious, how relevant is MTE when considered a security feature? IIRC, last time i checked there were reports about extracting tag values so that maybe the access control enforced by the tags can be bypassed.
MTE is very important because its a measure against an entire, very important class of vulnerabilities, memory safety vulnerabilities.
Generations of MTE improve over time. The implementation of MTE used on a Pixel 8 for example has certain side channels which arent present in the MTE used on an iPhone 17. That being said, it being imperfect doesn't make it irrelevant.
> Tech in China isn't used to suffocate anybody's human rights either
Explain the mass uploading of secret screen recordings in more than ten phone brands sold in China in a component called SystemHelper, disclosed in the past few days, including but not limited to Xiaomi, Samsung, OPPO.
Screeching whataboutism is what low intellect individuals do to justify applying a double standard. What Chinese companies do in China is basically the same thing that Americans do in the US and everywhere else. Yet, people claim America is a free country. So, apply the same logic to China?
If you need to be explained why companies like to harvest customer data, then what else is there to say about you.
First, work on your English before embarrassing yourself in public.
Second, work on your logic skills before embarrassing yourself in public.
Third, you still have not explained why recording phone screens and uploading the recording without telling the phone owners is not 'suffocating anybody's human rights'.
Have you been to China? Compared to European or US cities, it's like visiting the future. I'm writing this in a 350 kph passenger train that arrived right on the second.
If you really think so, you are deceived by the good old Chinese trick of showing you a good looking fake side, not totally fake, but extremely positively biased image.
You need to go deeper into the country to learn what's really there, but of course, the government will do anything to stop you from doing so. So you don't see it anyway.
EDIT: missed the in the train part. Could you tell us how easy it is to get access to the real Internet without using your foreign data plan?
You're speaking of two different things. China is a technocracy, but they also try to optimize for social outcomes. For instance there was recently an amusing crackdown on niang pao [1] - 'girly guns' or 'sissy men' in media, because they felt that media featuring effeminate men was imperiling traditional Chinese culture, gender norms, and so forth. In this sort of context extensive censorship is 100% expected.
Technocracy comes with good and bad things. For instance Chinese stop lights now feature refueling stations atop them for autonomous drones to operate indefinitely. But of course those drones will be used for domestic surveillance and other such things. So they're creating 1984, while we create Brazil. [2]
I don't disagree. But I'd also say that the attitude toward the techno- part in technocracy is purely pragmatic. Tech stuff, be it skill, knowledge or any kind of philosophy that grows out of them, is only viewed as an means to an end.
The core of the idea is still certain people trying hard to keep their social status, not tech.
Therefore, there is no inherent intention to develop tech, always to the next level. The world should not count on this to hope to have a better future.
One reason I think Machiavellianism is dumb is because the grand utopia people hope to achieve never come to pass, yet all the awful actions they do in the mean time most certainly do. And I also view this in the opposite way. I do not agree with you about Chinese leadership having ulterior motivations, but I'd say that even if they did it wouldn't be a problem.
When they're engaged in actions that are uplifting the lives of hundreds of millions and making the world an overall better place, I couldn't really care less if there's some grand evil scheme behind the curtain. I'd be rather happy to see a world filled with 'evil' people doing good things, than the current reality we live in filled with 'good' people doing evil things.
We should judge people much more by what they do, instead of by the rhetoric or inferred intent, because the former is all that matters.
This one I do disagree. It is hard to recognize what is going on in people's mind but it doesn't mean one should disregard it. Because the motivation decides the long term outcome, what seems to be uplifting might well become agonizing in near term like the other reply in this thread said, the tech is so intrusive that people can't get rid of it. Like the recently exposed massive uploading of screen recordings in Xiaomi and a bunch of other phones, there's nothing much that can be done to undo this kind of crap to actually uplift people's lives.
Motivation doesn't decide anything. Actions decide the long term outcome of actions.
And the things you're mentioning are non sequiturs similar to the initial point. China (and the US and most of every major power) is a surveillance state. That has nothing to do with whether or not they are uplifting the lives of people. Uplifting while protecting the privacy of individuals would be ideal, but that's an ideal that unfortunately does not exist anywhere.
that's a good point, I just notice that most people single out China and ignore everyone else, which I find concerning. I agree it still makes sense to point it out.
Yes, a dystopian future of censorship and human rights abuses. If that's the price of progress, no thanks. I'd rather have an AI that is slightly less capable than it could be, than a totalitarian regime that is actively abusing me
It is legitimate though. Data is not copyrightable, and even if it were they'd lose the ability to derive that data from other peoples copyrighted works.
At best what you have is a contract violation between the provider and the distiller, and that only applies if the one doing the distillation is the one that entered into the contract with the major LLM provider.
Likely they were smart enough to just not do that. Pay some scrubs on the internet to collect the training data for you. Maybe they violate the TOS, maybe they don't, it doesn't matter to YOU. You didn't have an agreement with OpenAI or Anthropic to violate... And as others have said OpenAI and Anthropic are likely doing the same, which is why ChatGPT sometimes thinks it is Deepseek.
You got derailed by the person I replied to. He got tickled off by thinking there is some political accusation going on and raised this other issue to defend for himself.
reply