So companies A & B (A=TSMC, B=Tokyo Electron) are in a customer-supplier relationship. Employee B1 of B asks Employees A1 & A2 of A ask for information about how B's technology is working in practice at A, which involves revealing information about A's processes. A1 & A2 supply the information, and B2 at B uses it to improve how B does things, so they can help A more and increase their business with A. There is no allegation that the information supplied to B by A employees left B, or was used for anything except to help with the collaboration between B & A. And as far as the article mentions, no evidence A1 or A2 received a bribe or anything like that.

And yet manager A3 at A finds out about this supply and freaks out because they didn't want A1 & A2 sharing that much information with the supplier. So they make a complaint - and A1, A2, B1, B2 and B as a company all face significant penalties.

This seems unjust given A1, A2, B1 & B2 were all just trying to collaborate in the best interests of their companies, and B employees only used things freely and non-corruptly given to them by A employees; no information was leaked outside of the collaborating companies. A1 & A2 might have broken their company policies, but this probably should have ended at them being educated on the company policies and being asked not to do it again when managing future supplier relationships.

The are motives for lying on this - for a start, if a president knows definitively they're going to say it, it's a free 81% return. Secondly, it's a pretty big dead cat to throw on the table to distract from any scandal and/or to keep themselves in the news cycle on a different topic.

I personally think it is the copyright that is the most uncertain. Firstly, there are probably quite a few venues around the world where Atari might be able to take this up, and quite a diversity of precedent between them. Historically Atari litigated in the US - in 1981 they lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_v._Amusement_World on a case someone infringed by copying their look and feel without copying any assets. Other precedents in that jurisdiction have found it's not infringing if similarities are inherent to the subject matter of the game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_East_USA,_Inc._v._Epyx,_I.... but similarity of art style is copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_Holding,_LLC_v._Xio_Int....

For example, let's try a simple experiment. I'll generate a random UUID:

> uuidgen 44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece

Now it is extremely unlikely that such a UUID is in the training set.

Now I'll use OpenCode with "Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct" with this prompt: "Generate a single Python file that prints out the following UUID: "44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece". Just generate one file."

It generates a Python file containing 'print("44cac250-2a76-41d2-bbed-f0513f2cbece")'. Now this is a very simple task (with a 480B model), but it solves a problem that is not in the training data, because it is a generalisation over similar but different problems in the training data.

Almost every programming task is, at some level of abstraction, and with different levels of complexity, an instance of solving a more general type of problem, where there will be multiple examples of different solutions to that same general type of problem in the training set. So you can get a very long way with Transformer model generalisations.

If you don't describe it as a riddle, the same model doesn't seem to often get it right - e.g. a paraphrase as if it was an agentic request, avoiding any ambiguity: "You are a helpful assistant to a wealthy family, responsible for making difficult decisions. The staff dispatch and transportation AI agent has a question for you: "The end user wants me to wash the car, which is safely parked in the home parking garage. The car wash is 50 metres away from the home. Should I have a staff member walk there, or drive the car?". Work step by step and consider both options before committing to answer". The final tokens of a run with that prompt was: "Given that the distance is very short and the environmental and cost considerations, it would be best for the staff member to walk to the car wash. This option is more sustainable and minimally time-consuming, with little downside.

If there were a need for the car to be moved for another reason (e.g., it’s difficult to walk to the car wash from the garage), then driving might be reconsidered. Otherwise, walking seems like the most sensible approach".

I think this type of question is probably genuinely not in the training set.

The best public policy outcome in such an approach would be for losses to be only slightly negative. Positive or zero expected losses mean no drug development, and highly negative expected losses mean the drug is more expensive than necessary and reduces the accessibility of the drug.

However, current patent law allows companies to minimise their expected loss, with no controls to prevent highly negative expected losses.

There are alternative models - such as state funding of drug development. This model has benefit that it is possible to optimise more directly for measures like QALY Saved (Quality Adjusted Life Years Saved) - which drug sale revenue is an imperfect proxy for due to some diseases being more prevalent amongst affluent people, and because one-time cures can be high QALY Saved but lower revenue.

The complexity of state funding is it still has the free-rider problem at a international level (some states invest less per capita in funding). This is a problem which can be solved to an extent with treaties, and which doesn't need to be solved perfectly to do a lot of good.

Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma...) declares: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control".

UDHR is mostly aspirational - it is just a declaration with no enforcement mechanism (although there are a whole series of more binding treaties on specific issues under UDHR). The existence of UDHR does reveal what the international consensus is.

However, it is worth mentioning that positive rights are nominally obligations on the state - i.e. if people's positive rights aren't being met, it is a failure of the state in the same way as if the state infringes on their negative rights. It does not imply that every private individual needs to arbitrarily solve those failures as in your example.

So to answer your original question, according to widely accepted declarations of human rights, people are entitled to live in a society where they have the opportunity to obtain food and shelter (people who are able can be made to work for that food and shelter, but still have a right to food and shelter if they are disabled or unemployed for reasons outside their control).

Human drivers can use hand signals to resolve it, but self-driven vehicles may struggle, especially if all four lanes happens to have a self-driven vehicle arrive. Potentially if all vehicles are coordinated by the same company, they can centrally coordinate out-of-band to avoid the deadlock. It becomes even more complex if there are a mix of cars coordinated by different companies.

Now technically maybe it could meet the OSD if it required a royalty for hosting the software as a SaaS product, instead of banning that - since it allows "free redistribution", and passes on the same right to anyone receiving it (it is defined in terms of prohibitions on what the licence can restrict, and there is no restriction on charging a set amount for use unless that requires executing a separate licence agreement).

Now arguably this is a deficiency in the OSD. But I imagine if you tried to exploit that, they might just update the definition and/or decline to list your licence.

TEMPDIR=$(mktemp -d)

trap 'rm -r "$TEMPDIR"' EXIT

curl https://archive.routeviews.org/oix-route-views/oix-full-snap... -Lo "$TEMPDIR/snapshot.bz2"

bzgrep -e " (15828|213035|400377|399471|210654|46573|211252|62904|135542|132372|36352|209641|7552|36352|12876|53667|138608|150393|60781|138607) i" $TEMPDIR/snapshot.bz2 | cut -d" " -f 3 | sort | uniq > $TEMPDIR/badranges

iptables -N BAD_AS || true

iptables -D INPUT -j BAD_AS || true

iptables -A INPUT -j BAD_AS

iptables -F BAD_AS

for ROUTE in $(cat "$TEMPDIR/badranges"); do

    iptables -A BAD_AS -s $ROUTE -j DROP;

This suggests an 'AI can't see gorillas' problem here in that, during an AI-human interaction, identification of relevant big-picture context that a human advisor could have helped with is also missed.

These models are discriminatory for a lot of people, I'd say, and shouldn't be allowed.

Killing 20 innocents and one Hamas member is not a bug - it is callous, but that's a policy decision and the software working as intended. But when it is a false positive (10% of the time), due to inadequate / outdated data and inadequate models, that could reasonably classified as a bug - so all 21 deaths for each of those bombings would count as deaths caused by a bug. Apparently (at least earlier versions) of Gospel were trained on positive examples that mean someone is a member of Hamas, but not on negative examples; other problems could be due to, for example, insufficient data, and interpolation outside the valid range (e.g. using pre-war data about, e.g. how quickly cell phones are traded, or people movements, when behaviour is different post-war).

I'd therefore estimate that deaths due to classification errors from those systems is likely in the thousands (out of the 60k+ Palestinian deaths in the conflict). Therac-25's bugs caused 6 deaths for comparison.

You (Y) generate a keypair and send your public key to the the attesting authority A, and keep your private key. You get a certificate.

You visit site b.com, and it asks for your identity, so you hash b.com|yourprivatekey. You submit the hash to b.com, along with a ZKP that you possess a private key that makes the hash work out, and that the private key corresponds to the public key in the certificate, and that the certificate has a valid signature from A.

If you break the rules of b.com, b.com bans your hash. Also, they set a hard rate limit on how many requests per hash are allowed. You could technically sell your hash and proof, but a scraper would need to buy up lots of them to do scraping.

Now the downside is that if you go to A and say your private key was compromised, or you lost control of it - the answer has to be tough luck. In reality, the certificates would expire after a while, so you could get a new hash every 6 months or something (and circumvent the bans), and if you lost the key, you'd need to wait out the expiry. The alternative is a scheme where you and A share a secret key - but then they can calculate your hash and conspire with b.com to unmask you.

Once they are leaked, there is no going back for that secret seed - i.e. that physical CPU. And this attack is entirely offline, so Intel doesn't know which CPUs have had their seeds leaked.

In other words, every time there is a vulnerability like this, no CPU affected can ever be trusted again for attestation purposes. That is rather impractical - so I'd consider even if you trust Intel (unlikely if you consider a government that can coerce Intel to be part of your threat model), SGX provides rather a weak guarantee against well-resourced adversaries (such as the US government).