In two years we will read a press-release about an AI-driven autonomous weapon which was supplied with infinite ammo and the target to "protect this perimeter from intruders", and how we now have to wait for it to run out of Ammo because it's so damn effective that we cannot reach it without being killed. All packaged in a semi-marketing framing on how impressively capable this company's products are...

> This incident occurred during an internal evaluation which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths, in an effort to quantify their cyber capabilities

Let's frame this in a military context for a second:

The general who gave the order to his troops to "wreak havoc" after exempting them from common restrictions now writes a blog-post on how it was not HIM who failed in his duty, but rather observes how his soldiers who worked "without direction" and performed "dangerous actions", which unexpectedly led to "this incident" of soldiers wreaking havoc...

[0] https://www.cow-shed.com/blog/the-paperclip-maximiser-what-a...

2. The model pursues advanced exploitation.

3. "There was a incident due to dangerous actions taken by the model that no human directed"

This is basically the pre-cursor of the paperclip maximizer [0], the AI executes the given order to an extend that was not considered in the order, now suddenly no-one is responsible.

It even has some parallels to military actions, where the general who gave the order now writes a blog-post on how it was not him who failed on his duty, but how his soldiers misunderstood his intention and worked "without direction"...

[0] https://www.cow-shed.com/blog/the-paperclip-maximiser-what-a...

It was decided collectively(!) that a registration in the individual countries is the process to use. Against the original draft, in which the European Commission explicitly(!) proposed EU-wide packaging requirements due to concerns of fragmented processes.

The result is a nationalization of the packaging compliance for a producer, while the obligations for the product inside that packaging, the seller, the buyer, the payment transfer etc. are all already regulated on EU-level.

This should have been reviewed by the country members with local experts, in your case a duty of the German representatives in the EU, and ultimately opposed as bad solution for SMB (the very business that the government claims to support).

Now it is a enforced regulation. You can of course give feedback to the EU [0], but in my opinion the only meaningful (yet exhausting) move as a SMB is to put the pressure on your LOCAL government (directly and via the local chamber of commerce) that they frankly f#cked up in representing your interests, causing you a competitive disadvantage in the European single market.

We will need to extinguish every attempt to blame this on "the EU". Germany was THERE when this regulation was written, there were 14(!) sessions within the European Council and 5 sessions in the European Parliament on this topic throughout 2023 and 2024 [1]

The EU is very transparent on this process, e.g. in case of Germany you can look up that Delara Burkhardt of SPD was one of the rapporteurs of the process, but there is no noted contribution from German parliament to this regulation at all (but from Czech, Italy, Spain, Romania, Poland)

(Don't get me wrong, all the proposed steps above apply to me as well. We now need to create noise to rectify something that could have been easily avoided if elected representatives would also ... represent)

[0] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2022_396#2023-07-19_O...

3-5 years is also longer than (most) election cycles in the local governments, so the representatives working on the regulation may not be in government anymore and are more busy fighting the aftermath of enforced regulation already decided in the PRIOR administration

They should have influenced the form of this regulation because its final form affects the business of (German) citizens in the (Polish) market and threatens the EU single-market for SMB.

1. This regulation was SIGNED in Dec.2024 [0], the average lead-time for the final document is 13-17 MONTHS, so work on this regulation started in 2023.

2. The law went into effect in Feb.2025 and is only being ENFORCED from Aug.2026 [0]

3. The owner of this regulation is the Directorate-General for Environment (DG-ENV), which consists of members from many European Countries [1], closely working with local representatives those local government assigned to work in the EU.

This is not a blame on anyone in EU not knowing about this (!)

The point is that NOTHING was rushed here by the EU. Local representatives of the countries had PLENTY of time to contribute and influence the regulation, PLENTY of time to consult the public and local experts to work out the best local solution, PLENTY of time to prepare locally for the enforcement.

If there's a feeling that this wasn't done, then the pressure needs to be put on the LOCAL government.

It is too popular in local politics to frame the EU as an "external force" outside of anyone's influence of which the country is suffering from, while celebrating yourself for everything actually achieved by the Union of the European countries.

--> If citizens don't reject "Anti EU" sentiments and scapegoat-narratives from local governments and political parties, and demand the acknowledgement, participation and responsibility of procedures in the European Union, the pressure is not applied at the point where the problem can be resolved.

[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=OJ:L_202...

[1] https://commission.europa.eu/about/departments-and-executive...

This is somehow by intention. In the ramp-up of Android adoption, Vendors and carriers started to fork Android and deviate too much from the core. Google needed a leverage to tie them to stay compatible to the ecosystem, Google Mobile Services (GMS) was the tool to do so. "Pass the compatibility test suite and you qualify to preload GMS".

Then, at some point, Google implemented API's in the OS which call Google's cloud infrastructure (e.g. Location services), which they didn't want to commit to the Android source for the risk of them being forked and modified, so they started to implement them in a precompiled "Google Play Services" module.

Over time, it seems Google Play Services became the preferred vehicle for Google to rollout any kind of API-changes to have them applied on all devices immediately, without waiting for the vendor to do an OS-Upgrade.

The result is that Google now promotes Google Play Service API's as the way for the most widely compatible implementation of an app. Which is...not wrong, but in the larger picture also the reason why Android is not considered "real" open-source (anymore).

> The ideal outcome for me would be keeping Android but effectively dissolving Play Services

Agree. There is still a very good OS in there, clearly written by considerate SW-Engineers.

Apple is then "just" monitoring the corporate user account for security reasons, it was the employee who decided to use the same account for private purposes...

Worth to note that there is a huge practical difference between a "custom" and a "self-build" home.

- On "self-build" you take full personal responsibility for finding land, securing planning permission, managing the budget, and hiring architects or builders.

- On "custom" you buy from a developer who already has pre-approved planning permissions, often for a huge serviced plot targeting 20-30 homes based on some copy/paste concept, managing all aspects of the construction while you can influence minor aspects of the layout, style, and interior finishes.

Custom-built homes are very common in rest of Europe. It's a common scheme to buy a plot of land, plan a low-cost project of very densely placed, similar looking houses, reusing as many elements as possible to simplify permissions, and then allowing customers to pay for additions within those fixed boundaries.

The possible individual modifications are usually minor then, everything that requires re-submission for (structural/council/...) approval is not economic.

Then there's the "I self-build, my dad is a carpenter and I just bought this toolbox" category, which is such a minefield of fatal mistakes that movies and reality shows were made around it.

I think the market for "self-build but fully outsourced to a premium developer" is the ~1-2% bracket only...

1. Consider trying other brands

2. Pass on their existing (still quite capable) phone to a family member (taking him/her out of the purchasing loop)

3. Stick with the existing model for longer as they don't find a compelling reason to upgrade.

(was already confident, then there's suddenly a screenshot mentioning display components)

For the past years OnePlus wasn't much more than a sub-brand for slightly redesigned Oppo devices anyway...

No, hype and demand are not exclusive to each other. You can create hype around good or bad products. The key aspect is that hype is not entirely grounded on quantifiable practical values of a product but a demand which is amplified by an emotional desire.

Which is exactly what Apple did, and this move allowed them to make demands towards carriers no other company could.

OnePlus products were mostly slightly redesigned Oppo products for the past years, built on the same hardware and running the same OS.

Early-on it was an impressive corporate experiment to observe: The giant company Oppo gave one of its members Carl Pei the chance to create an agile sub-brand with an own OS and access to Oppo's supply chain.

Carl Pei succeeded and OnePlus became a disruptive force in many markets for several years.

But Carl Pei already left (to start the UK-based tech company 'Nothing'), the OnePlus OS was discontinued and product development was largely folded into Oppo many years ago already...

> Liu left Apple for OpenAI in January 2026. However, on February 9, Liu discovered an “authentication bug” that was unknown to Apple at the time.

Liu discovered the bug after leaving Apple, in Feb '26, but talked about it using an internal messaging-system?, while still at Apple?

But he exploited it AFTER leaving Apple, and Apple discovered and fixed the bug "after they found Liu’s messages"?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933283

Points: 4

# Comments: 2