You're assuming "human development" is some dark force that controls humans but it's not controllable by them, I would describe this as a slightly amusing occultist belief.

Of course, the exact opposite is true, if humans fail to maintain the straight spear of progress it will be their fault and folly, because, objectively, it isn't even hard to maintain.

MS is an entrenched monopoly which is hard to move off of, especially in times of low budgets and tough debt markets. On the other hand, LLMs are reshaping the competitive landscape and MS might be reacting to that threat, in their usual MS way.

This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction and it hamstrings OSS while others gain from LLM assistance. There are better ways to deal with this issue and I predict that OSS projects which blanket-ban LLMs are going to lose out to more competent maintainers.

The deafening silence about improving the security of existing infrastructure screams conflicts of interest. Companies who pride themselves with their coding AI all of a sudden are helpless when it comes to fixing security bugs. In that case they can only find vulnerabilities and disclose them in the most irresponsible manner imaginable but everything else is "oh, so hard".

That "expectation" us far from certainty and it exists for bugs found by humans too, in both cases, caution dictates to follow the standard responsive disclosure procedure.

My impression is that Linus doesn't like dealing with security, it's just an annoying chore he's uncertain about. I hope things change in the future because that attitude percolates down to the kernel team as well and it spells trouble when combined with the size of the project and the new AI developments.

Almost everyone's info of the above kind is available on the dark web, as the original article about this case explained. That situation is the result of everyone collecting KYC information while also being too incompetent to properly guard it.

> + selfie (liveliness) check

I don't know what this is, but it protected nothing and it's apparently useless.

Then, after the fraud CashApp protected the fraudster by stonewalling the victim and the lack of exculpatory evidence led to the filing of formal charges.

CashApp failed to investigate and provide vital information to victim while she was being investigated - they did that too late only after they were compelled to do so by the court and lawyers, creating a very hard situation for the victim and allowing the fraudsters to cover their tracks.

You haven't read the article. The stakes are much higher than "a few days in jail" which isn't nearly as small of a problem as you make it out to be either.

> Dying or losing a loved one from 9/11.

Why do you have to repeat this nonsensical 9/11 strawman of an analogy which has nothing to do with the case in question? Nobody asked for government "scanning of your communications". What you failed to notice is the refusal of CashApp to provide information about the fraudulent account because the victim couldn't prove owning it while she was being investigated for owning it.

CashApp stonewalled the victim and prevented proper investigation before charges were formally filed and the prosecutor got involved, after that it was to late and the mess that followed resulted in great expenses, turmoil and further risks for the victim.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140001

Maybe instead of looking at "the world outside the U.S." you could look into fundamental economics? As I explained above, repayment by inflation is a regressive tax imposed on the middle and below, with interest paid to the rich. This is only cosmetically different from what Sweden and France are doing.

Inflation is a form of debt repayment by way of regressive taxation imposed on the middle and below with interest delivered to the rich.

You can define "tool" anyway you like but for the purpose of this conversation "tool" is anything that can do some kind of work but isn't a human. That is, start with defining "human" and then consider the non-biological entities that do work for us, there's no need for defining "tool". Then ask yourself, is an autonomous car/tractor/drone/etc a human?

Further, consider the simple fact that "human work" is an accidental chore reluctantly performed for the needs of human survival but it doesn't define what human is in any way (animals do work too). Hopefully, this can help you to stop conflating "work" and "human".

My point is that LLM's amplify the capabilities of malware but add nothing substantively new to the existing threats. I also expect, as you should too, that LLMs will help us harden our systems against malware which happens to include everything LLMs can do too.

> but in fact we often do not know who to prosecute, either because we don't know how to track the source of the malware

Right, in this regard, there's no difference between LLM- and non-LLM malware either, so there's no reason to hype LLMs as a new threat. Instead of made up, LLM-bad political hype, we could promote existing (but under-deployed) technical solutions which help us trace malware origins and prevent DDOS, e.g. Source Address Validation BCP 38 / RFC 2827, SAVI / RFC 7039, QUIC hardeneing, etc.

They failed to mention that replicating LLMs is meaningless when conventional malware can replicate itself better, faster and quieter. Even more, conventional malware can replicate LLMs using a simple install script, and even those LLMs that aren't yet "capable of end to end replication".

In other words, this stunt adds nothing new to the known security threats, its purpose cannot be related to security.

He isn't talking about the handling of fires but about the accusations of arson, these are different issues and both of them are present in the article. It takes a human to understand that though.

With the same success you can argue that we can't turn off conventional malware, which can also replicate. On the other hand, LLM replication is much slower and cumbersome, so it's much easier to detect and stop, even the existing anti-virus tools should work against it with great success. Obviously defeating the "turn off" strawman proves exactly nothing.

> In particular, I've seen a lot of people say that our response to things like the Hugging Face swarm should be to prosecute whoever chose to run the swarm.

Copying whatever on another machine without authorization is already a crime, every replication initiated by the original agent or its offspring is a crime committed by the person who deployed the original, the laws dealing with malware intrusions already know who to prosecute.

You appear to be seriously confused by treating bots as independent lifeforms and you fail to see their close similarity to malware and other software.

Every admin, both major parties and all of big business gain from understating inflation, it's a fundamental conflict of interest. Calling it a "possibility" might be a tiny tad timid, I think.

I'm not making a mistake, you're confusing abstract "abstractions" with concrete humans. Some humans aren't much into abstractions but that doesn't make them less human. LLMs manipulate human-created abstractions, similar to other software, but that doesn't make them human at all.

> Using hand tools vs power tools as a bad analogy

You're confused about my analogy too, here's what I said: "a human digging trenches isn't a tool but a tractor-trencher is, even if autonomous". Robotic, autonomous tractor-trenchers do manipulate abstractions and dig trenches but that doesn't make them human.

If human - the sub-contractor isn't a tool, if robot - it is. Similar to how a human digging trenches isn't a tool but a tractor-trencher is, even if autonomous.

Nothing wrong with human exceptionalism, actually, if we exclude religion, human non-exceptionalism is risky to the point of insanity.

> How about we just admit that we don't know?

How about we admit that we do know? We do know that LLM's don't suffer and we do know that even if they do, it doesn't matter - we do know that animals suffer when they're killed for food, and?

Animals can express their suffering, LLM's cannot - because they don't suffer. If something hurts I don't feel it in my "neural network" I feel it at the point of contact or other organs whose functions are suppressed for very specific reasons. LLM's have no body, no organs, therefore no need to experience suffering. Suffering is a function specifically evolved for specific purposes, it's not an inherent property of all neural nets.

Artificial neural nets feel as much as a nail feels when struk by a hammer - no more. ANN's can fake feelings but they can't feel.