This viewpoint isn't a slippery slope, it's a runaway train.
"You moved into a neighborhood with lead pipes? That's on you, should have done more research"
"Your vitamins contained undisclosed allergens? You're an adult, and it didn't say it DIDN'T contain those"
"Passwords stolen because your provider stored them in plaintext? They never claimed to store them securely, so it's really on you"
Legislating that everyone must always be safe regardless of what app they use is a one-way ticket to walled gardens for everything. This kind of safety is the rationale behind things like secure boot, Apple's App Store, and remote attestation.
Also consider what this means for open source. No hobbyist can ship an IM app if they don't go all the way and E2E encrypt (and security audit) the damn thing. The barriers of entry this creates are huge and very beneficial for the already powerful since they can afford to deal with this stuff from day one.
Doesn't have to be a law. Can just be standard engineering practice.
Websockets for example are always encrypted (not e2e). That means anyone who implements a chess game over websockets gets encryption at no extra effort.
We just need e2e to be just as easy. For example maybe imagine a new type of unicode which is encrypted. Your application just deals with 'unicode' strings and the OS handles encryption and decryption for you, including if you send those strings over the network to others.
I once publicly stated it's understandable that someone would post an ad that says "No YouTubers" because people don't want to be content for others. The reply I got was "but you're being recorded all the time anyway", as if those are remotely related.
this isn't anything new, however. No messaging has been actually private since forever, that's why encryption was invented. To keep secrets and to pass those secrets in a way that can be observed without revealing the secret.
Telephones can be tapped, people sold special boxes that would encrypt/decrypt that audio before passing it to the phone or to the ear. Mail can be opened, covertly or not. AIM was in the clear (I think at one point, fully in the clear, later probably in the clear as far as the aol servers were concerned)...
Unless the app/method is directly lying to users about being e2ee it's not a slippery slope, it's the status quo. Now there are some apps out there that I think i've seen that are lying. They are claiming they are 'encrypted' but fail to clarify that it's only private on the wire, like the aim story.. the message is encrypted while it flys to the 'switchboard' where it's plain text and then it's put wrapped in encryption on the wire to send it to the recipient.
The claim here that actually makes me chuckle is somehow trying to paint e2ee as 'unsafe' for users.
I have a feeling you'd start into see costs start to align if the subsidies that go towards beef producers were reallocated in the direction of more sustainable alternatives.
On a scale of ease of saying vs ease of doing, this one is off the charts. The beef lobby is very powerful, and for 99% of people literally all they can do is to reduce their own consumption and annoy their friends and family. These things do almost nothing to move the needle.
He doesn't, it's literally enshrined in the constitution. If he decides to violate that, it's him violating the constitution yet again, not proof that he has a say.
It would also probably be the last straw for a lot of people who has been limping along on the belief in free elections.
More importantly, this isn’t a “who’s going to stop me?” sort of thing like having ICE violate people’s civil rights. The power isn’t there. ICE does what Trump says because the law puts them under his control and he metaphorically signs their paychecks. If Trump orders state governments to do something with elections, that carries no weight. There’s no legal obligation or tradition to comply, no paychecks involved, nothing that would compel them to do it unless they actually wanted to. He’d have to use force, and it would be a gargantuan effort that would spur great resistance.
Usefulness and overvaluation are not mutually exclusive. AI is useful, but it is not a fraction as useful as these companies spending rates would have one believe.
If it is, then the world is going to lose pretty much all white collar jobs. That's not really the bright future they're selling either.
An LLM has no autonomy. They LITERALLY exist to do the bidding of humans, without the human behind them they do not exist.
This is not some way of denigrating or belittling them. They are not human, they are not conscious, they are not alive, they cannot be categorized as an "outgroup" because they are not a group of beings. There is no room for debate on this outside among people who understand how LLMs work.
The actual problem with "clanker" is the casual allusions to actual racism and use of classically racist idioms.
Alternatively, they dont like to be fact-checked. One of donalds favorite activities is denying he ever said/did things he is recorded on video as saying/doing.
If you were applying for asylum because the conditions in your country were so oppressive to you as a political actor or member of a disfavored ethnic group, you could support your application with relevant data from the CIA world factbook describing general conditions in that country. As a publication of the US government, those factual claims would not be lightly dismissable or disputable the way third party opinions might.
reply