You can structure it so that it becomes accidental.
1. Ensure security barriers are weak or honor based.
2. Put individual researchers under a lot of pressure.
3. If you get caught, blame the weak barriers, or the individual researcher.
Basically setup the incentive structure to incentivize researchers sticking their mittens in the private cookie jar while putting the cookie jar in a dark unmonitored/unsecured room with a sign on the door saying please don't enter.
Yeah, the steps follow exactly what happened at VW with DieselGate. The diesel emissions lies were found out because some enterprising person set up an emissions testing system and drove the car in real world scenarios with it to verify the claimed emissions.
There's no reliable way to verify a foundation model has been trained on a particular piece of proprietary data. If an API key is ingested, hopefully the foundation model is wrapped in enough moderation that the raw API key oberserved during training is not recited verbatim in the output.
Not trying to be rude, but do you work in tech? I can't imagine presenting this as a plan of record in a design review. And the world runs on good faith. If you call a pharmacy, claim to be some doctor, leave a voice mail, and give their (public) NPI number, there is no validation.
Why aren't people calling in prescriptions for themselves? I guess it just kinda runs on trust me bro and the threat of being put in prison.
EndeavorOS. I think it's actually the userspace though, which this aims to emulate. The problem is that if you're using a macbook for final cut pro, then endeavorOS doesn't solve your problem.
Hmm, isn't EndeavorOS in the same vein as CachyOS? Mainly a pre-configured Arch variant with a custom point-and-click configurator built in? I don't see where it'd be of particular interest to would-be switchers using macOS.
I think the better example is actually GNU, which endured several challenges as a clean room implementation of unix. I think this is legally sound, but IANAL.
> none of the components had sovereignty over the state they needed to do their job independently. It's just components micro-managing components all the way down.
Isn't one of the tenants of FP that nothing is mutable anywhere?
Correct, technically they pass copies of the state; which gets cloned at every component/module/function boundary. This protects you from 'spooky action at a distance' which is a real problem which can happen when mutable state is shared by different components but FP can introduce other issues related to passing around a lot of state which can become outdated as it traverses the many layers of spaghetti code.
That's because megadonors don't give to candidates directly? In order to trigger the unlimited campaign finance guaranteed by citizens united, you create a super pac. They can't openly coordinate with the candidate.
If you add in all super PACs and outside spending, it would make up roughly 30-35% of the overall expidenture. That's a lot but super PAC money is worth much less to a campaign compared to donations because it can't be used for core expenses like labor.
I think that argument should stop with advocacy for law. I have no problem with this when it's means playing optimally within the current laws, things like hiring world class tax attorneys. But if using your immense wealth to ensure the rules that everyone plays by favor you specifically, instead of the country/world, It feels like this is closer to bribing a judge than hiring a tax attorney.
I would normally agree with that, but in this particular case "everyone" is just over 200 individuals. And he could be opposing it on principle as well.
A one-off retroactive wealth tax is a rather questionable form of taxation even if (like myself) you are in favour of looking for ways to tax the super rich more effectively.
When I read about these one-off wealth taxes I find one thing really astonishing. The argument against wealth taxes in general is that people would change their behaviour, which would reduce the tax take over time. That's certainly true.
But then left wing economists believe that imposing it retroactively and calling it a "one-off" does not change people's behaviour. Technically, it cannot change their behaviour with respect to this specific taxation event.
But I find it utterly naive to believe that this sort of hit and run taxation will not change people's behaviour in other ways that would reduce tax revenues.
No one in their right mind would ever believe that a tax that brings in $100bn over 5 years will not have to be replaced by some other tax paid by the same group or by the somewhat less well off who decided to stay.
Each marginal person does not produce more environmental benefits than they consume. It's dramatically the opposite. My butt is not a carbon capture device.
reply