When a similar bill was voted down years ago, someone I was with laughed and said, 'no way were we paying for healthcare for the Blacks'. It fits the divide and conquer strategy to divide poorer people with hate so that they don't unite and vote for all these things - why do you think leaders promote hate?

Many Democratic politicians are moving away from progressive positions, including Ocasio-Cortez. They seem to be following the old (and failed) Democratic Party tactic of moving to the center to get elected.

Our comments don't disagree (though I was only responding to the comment parent to mine). My point is to question how 'MIT student' is a signal for 'well-intentioned'.

> The researchers presented their results at the "ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security" (CCS) in Taipei.

This citation at the bottom might be the paper:

Julian Todt, Felix Morsbach, Thorsten Strufe. BFId: Identity Inference Attacks Utilizing Beamforming Feedback Information. , DOI: 10.1145/3719027.3765062

Notice that it doesn't matter if you are using Wifi. If you're in a city, I doubt there are many places that lack Wifi radio waves.

Thank you to the researchers (seriously) for revealing this to the public rather than selling it to the highest bidder. Though I suspect that, given how obvious it is once you think about it - all these radio waves solve many problems of passive imaging - it's already known to some people.

> wBlock by an MIT student is open source

It's funny to me that some find that narrative appealing.

Here's another narrative: Many of those MIT students go on to be SV founders and employees who build, operate, and make millions or billions from the mass surveillance and ad industry. And I'm sure some participated in FOSS in college - what better way to build your resume for the surveillance/ad industry?

(I'm not commenting on the wBlock developer; I think all such narratives are deceiving and should be ignored.)

Outside, almost everyone I know - including highly educated people - takes even Google's search LLM output as fact, without a second thought, and even regarding serious issues (e.g., medical problems). Nobody raises a doubt or an eyebrow. A recent article says members of US Congress use it extensively for serious work. Lawyers use it to file cases. Doctors use it to summarize essential medical information. I even hear that software developers use it to create high-risk, high-value code.

In the public people think computers are superior to humans - more authoritative, objective, perfectly logical and error-proof. SV pushes that narrative, for example saying computer-driven cars are safer because computers don't have human flaws (that old sales technique - compare only the competition's unique flaws and don't mention your own; computers have their own flaws that humans lack). And of course, that one is popular on HN.

(IMHO the way to educate the public is to spread the narrative that every computer is created (designed, programmed) by normal, flawed, biased, etc. humans, and controlled by other flawed humans for their own agenda. And that computers have their own flaws.)

Rae bought all the candy at the store - Milky Way, Reese's, M&Ms, everything - and set out for Kay's party.

That can't be rewritten as,

Rae bought all the candy at the store; Milky Way, Reese's, M&Ms, everything; and set out for Kay's party.

Semicolons set off independent clauses - what would otherwise be complete sentences. Em dashes create breaks in the flow of the sentence; commas are more similar.

1. So we can't score the first paragraph (or similar-sized block), and not short texts? Not deal-breaker, but a limitation.

2. Doesn't the score vary by each AI system state - its model, programming, harness, etc.? Claude's output today doesn't match Gemini's, nor Claude from 2 years ago.

Here's what I grasp: The AI system scores each token and then selects tokens based on those scores. If we encode something in the token selection routine ('in order choose the 1st, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 2nd, then 1st highest scored tokens'), we can identify AI-generated text by comparing sample text (ST) to the expected text (ET) for that prompt.

1) How do we score the tokens for the ET without the original prompt? Even a Markov-like process needs to start somewhere.

2) To recreate ET don't we need to maintain, until the end of time, the AI state - entire model and code - at the time of ST output?

3) Doesn't #2 require maintaining all states for all AIs? Often you won't know when and from which AI system the ST might have been generated. What happens when an AI vendor goes out of business?

4) To recreate ET, don't we effectively have to rerun the prompt? Won't rerunning it for every verification increase most costs of AI output by an order of magnitude? Most of what AI vendors do would be ST validation.

It's a popular argument that doesn't make it's point very explicitly nor offer any support for it, but the main point is that college education itself has no value. That mode of expression is an old technique that people unintentionally use when they repeat the argument: By not being explicit about the thesis or any support for it, it's impossible to address - the thesis is invisible to many. (In college, you learn you have to explicitly write your thesis and your support for it.)

Necessary to it is the argument, again implicit, that the only value in the world is income. Once you see that explicitly written out, you know it's obviously absurd. (It's absurd for another reason too: knowledge and intellectual skill are great aids to income.)

People on HN highly value knowledge and cognitive skill. They spend significant time on gaining it, including right here. How much would they value years to dedicate to the very best of those things, learning from each of the very best humans and ideas from any time or place, guided and advised by other people who have spent their lifetime studying each person or idea, and who can introduce you to the best of it and to the most powerful counter-arguments, flaws, and alternatives. It sounds like a fantasy, but it's real.

There are powerful people who don't like those thinkers and ideas, because they undermine power. So they devalue them, ostracize them, defund them, ban them - all to stop you from reading them. Those must be powerful ideas.

> you own the state .. the state doesn't owe you anything .. its first duty is to protect the country .. at whatever cost is necessary

That's the opposite of modern government:

"...We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Note that the sole purpose of government is to protect the freedom and rights of each person, to the extent that if government "becomes destructive of these Ends", it is time to abolish it. There is no 'country' to serve, only the people in it.

It's odd that, having this amazing, just political tradition handed to you, so strongly established over centuries and around the world, so extraordinarily successful beyond all others in freedom, prosperity, stability, and security, you would seek to undermine it and serve dictators who oppress, impoverish, and kill you. Why do you prefer a state that 'doesn't owe you anything'?

> America is in the strongest position it's ever been

You'll have to support that claim for it to have any meaning. Like the rest of what you've written on this page, it's just bytes otherwise.

"Recently the OpenSSH team have received a large number of security bug reports, many of which are findings from AI models or made with AI assistance. While many AI reports are determined not to have security impact when considered in the context of a realistic threat model, we very much welcome these reports, especially when combined with human triage, analysis, test-cases and particularly when accompanied by proposed fixes."

Often, when I don't see something I later find I was looking in the wrong dimension (in a sort of geometric sense). Classical music aficionados rejected rock music as 'just noise'; they were looking for elements of classical music. Rock fans sometimes find classical boring for a similar reason.

In any case, I'm sorry you are missing out. :)

> national security > free market capitalism

Also, claiming 'national security' is an old excuse to do anything. The current administration uses it to justify almost anything. These aren't absolutes - everything that possibly touches on national security isn't justifiable. And free markets are critical to national security - that's what gives the US and others a huge advantage in economic output and innovation.

Meta and everyone else with experience knows that, for disruptive technologies, backlash is the stage before adoption. In a sense, the backlash means you're achieving market momentum.

Not all backlashes lead to adoption, but if you want to implement regulations (blur all faces in recordings, no identification, etc.), now is the time to move. At the adoption stage it seems to become normalized and people lose interest, like with other mass surveillance - obviously horrific and dangerous, but few will think about doing anything.

I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal.

Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing only 'coolness' and make no attempt at insight. Pursuing insight requires embracing ignorance and questions, thus surrendering the smarter-than-thou attitude.

You're missing out, IMHO.

Then they can compete successfully with non-US companies and protectionist tariffs are useless.