Wait, we shouldn’t be basing our investment decisions today on data from the past and projections from people with a vested interest in the stock going up?
Covid drops were a true black swan, 6-10% drops. Justified because we shut down the world. We’re still paying for that… You have the crazy crashes like black monday and a few of the days in 08/09. But the worst times are the repricings where there’s suddenly a realization that we haven’t been paying enough attention to the true value of things, and maybe we should have been doing that. That’s the long multi year stagnating bear markets like 1999-2002. I think probably 50-75% haircut is warranted. That doesn’t mean we won’t rise again, but you also have a lot of money held by boomers who just aren’t going to go back in. This is the start of a long decline that is needed to get things back to a normal tracking of reality. It must happen and it’s actually good for everyone to get a stronger sense of the sacrifices we all have to make to build a functional world. We all have to work hard almost our entire lives. It’s just how it is. Robots are going to help this time for sure, that hard work will reward us and our successor generations with longer, healthier lives. But we still need to work hard.
This for some reason reminds me of OS/400 libraries. Basically on AS/400 everything is an object, libraries are basically like DB tables but are first class OS objects (like files in unix). You might want to read up on it, they took the concept incredibly far and it’s of course still a part of i series to this day. You basically can use SQL right on the command line.
It lowers the economic cost of a given attack, but also lowers the economic cost of protection. Not sure if it’ll be a perfect balance, but right now there’s a manufactured IMbalance due to embargos and winner picking.
It lowers the economic cost of performing an attack in the same way a gun lowers the economic cost of killing a person. It does nothing for consequences of that attack.
Also, that’s the wrong mental model. Anyone who runs a sass platform or a website knows that the Internet is already full of millions and millions and millions of bots and scripts and other random shit that’s always trying to attack you, often completely randomly. Security is always a battle between good and evil. All I can say is that if you’re in charge of keeping something secure, you should probably try to get your hands on the best tools to do that. I think the problem in this case is that the best tools to do that are also the tools that are making it more easy for evil to occur. So it’s more for me a perception of someone creating a threat and the tool to fix it and then charging for it which doesn’t feel right.
That's exactly what they are doing. Out of all the civilian applications that AI capabilities have, why has this surfaced as a priority for demonstration? Probably because of money.
1. AI companies do make defense against threats a primary thing they sell to companies, including because companies want it - should AI companies not do this? (And of course this kind of thing isn’t what AI companies demo to consumers.)
2. AI is also tested to see more of its worst case in terms of security - but the tests are supposed to remain sandboxed. (OpenAI is explicit that this was an OpenAI failure that openAI must fix.) But beyond such fixes, should such sandboxed testing not be done?
oauth, saml, oidc accomplish the same thing in a way more mature way, so if you’re already using SSO just do that instead of adding another point of failure..
reply