Not hard to see how an AI agent could achieve something similar even as a step towards some innocently established goal.

Poor security + hacker-like capacities for anyone using an AI agent.

What could go wrong?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47576186

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46885158

Points: 4

# Comments: 3

Nowadays, the question about whether LLMs are "actually" doing something similar to human thinking revolves around other dimensions, such as whether they rely on emergent world-models or not. Whether such world models would require symbolic reasoning or not is a different matter.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46744952

Points: 8

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46742733

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46728232

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392370

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

No. I'm making the Law-101 claim that, according to the Brazilian constitution (as well as most democratic constitutions worldwide) you can't rely on freedom of speech to bypass the law. Pretty much everything you said up to this point relies on this fundamental misunderstanding.

> The constitution is the constitution. If other laws contradict the constitution in any way whatsoever, they are wrong and invalid. I don't even want to hear the argument, they are unconstitutional and they should be literally deleted from the law books. And they would have been, if these judges were doing their jobs correctly.

There's a hierarchy within the constitution itself. Fundamental principles of the constitution come "before" constitutional norms. Indeed, constitutional norms must be interpreted under the lights of the constitutional principles, and any interpretation that doesn't follow them is unconstitutional. Isonomy (equality), for instance, is a principle. The right to speak freely is a norm. That means, among other things, that your right to speak freely can't be used to harm isonomy. Abuse of economic power is a way to to harm isonomy within elections (for you can use money to boost your reach, effectively "silencing" your adversaries by flooding your discourse everywhere, making the voter's decision to be a function of your money rather than about your political ideas and proposals).

Therefore, your whole reasoning about what should be the case is pretty much backwards, for you're implying that norms should come before principles.

Whenever one wants to think of oneself as capable of teaching judges (or any other professional), how to do their jobs, it is always a good idea to study how things actually work.

> By this point it's more than clear that we're never going to agree with each other.

Indeed, for I agree with the Brazilian constitution and you don't.

Not sure what you mean by "Xen security" in contrast with "OS security". Qubes is an OS. Though a lot depends on your threat model, if you have high security needs, Qubes is likely to be your best companion.

Anyway, another reasonable choice is Kicksecure. It's the debian-based OS underlying Whonix (Kicksecure is focused on security and Whonix adds its privacy/anonymity setup on top of it). You can use Kicksecure as a VM within Qubes, by the way.

https://www.kicksecure.com

The tricky part is that they might be interested in the results you promise, but still lack motivation. It's common for someone who's interested in losing weight not to be very motivated to do it themselves. They don't want to lose weight themselves, they want to "be slimmed down by someone else". You may face a similar difficulty. That's part of the reason why changing a culture is so hard.

I know that's not a direct answer to your question, but I needed this context to say this: I think whatever tricks and tips you can come up with yourself are more likely to succeed. That's because you're already familiar with the specific needs and the specific difficulties people might face when handling the most frequent and repetitive issues.

Rather than thinking how to get fuzzy improvements on people's overall writing skills, perhaps you could try to focus on suggesting specific solutions for specific problems ("hey everyone, I've noticed that when handling X people usually forget to tell p, q and z. So let us agree on using this text structure '1) p; 2) q; and 3) z; whenever handling X"). I think that, by accumulating lots of small tricks like these over time, you'll be able to go further. Going bottom-up seems easier than trying to change things top-down.

I'm not sure this makes sense to you, for I'm not familiar with your concrete situation, but I hope it helps somehow.

The difficulty in seeing "where is it in the constitution" is likely related to viewing Law texts as a kind of source-code in which everything must be carefully defined and every possibility must be explicitly stated. No constitution work that way. No one could. It may contain some very specific rules, but in general it is an articulation of principles that must be observed by legislators while formulating laws. One of such principles is that our freedoms cannot be detached from our responsibility (i.e. the possibility of being held responsible). Law works that way because one can't predict in advance every kind of situation.

For instance, if I ask you whether you agree that right to life is a fundamental value, you would probably say yes. I assume the same goes for freedom of religion. But what would you say of a father that refuses to do blood transfusion in his newborn son for religious reasons, thus leading to its death? As responsible for the newborn, is he entitled to act this way? Which value should prevail? Freedom of the father to act according to one's religion or the right of the newborn to life? Distinct communities can give distinct answers (e.g. ancient Japanese would perhaps pick honor over life). The point is not whether there's a clear answer or not. The point is that you can't expect to find an "if-then" statement explicit about it in the Constitution or even in laws in general, and that you can't expect that whatever works in this specific situation is fully generalizable to every other situation in which these two values conflict. Applying the law requires interpretation of both the text and the situation in question, and there's a whole discipline dedicated to how that's done (hermeneutics).

The same goes for values such as freedom of speech. Given its intrinsic connection to responsibility, its application is always bounded by the law, and the application of the law is always bounded by the specific situation at stake. That's why we can and should tolerate people believing weird things that go against our best scientific knowledge (juridically, no one cares if you believe that the earth is flat), because we can easily keep them under check using arguments, rational discourse, etc. However, if it becomes part of something illegal like attributing a crime to someone else without evidence (e.g you're using your influence over flat-earthers and their typical suspicion of NASA, to make them believe that the NASA is supporting your political adversary in an attempt to fraud the elections), you must and will be held accountable, (that why it's not really about "judges deciding what's fake"; rather, it is about how one is (ab)using a given discourse.

What you have, thus, is a scenario in which 1) the producers were already being investigated for electoral misconduct; 2) they were known supporters of B; and 3) they were boosting and promoting B.'s campaign material in social media disguised as "news" and "documentaries" (which is a way of trying to dodge the accusation of economic power abuse). The case in question is just an acute one.

And even in the face of all this, authorities didn't outright ban the release, but delayed it until after the election (about a week), effectively preventing misuse without imposing censorship.

But I do agree that vim's stability is priceless. It's been years without any need for major changes in my vimrc, and without any trouble with the plugins I use.

I'm sympathetic with the author, though. Whenever you need to change, finding an alternative that "just works" always makes things easier and you can quickly get back to being productive. I'm not so sure that I wouldn't go down a similar path if the vim ecosystem collapsed.