It doesn't have to be criminally illegal. Instead it could simply be civil. The apartment complex, which you do not own, would be the ones setting the rules here.

And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes.

And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule.

And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.

How would society benefit if all the benefit collects to the top of the pyramid? Same old trickle down? The technology isn’t inherently bad but if it comes with massive unemployment and creates social unrest while a few at the top profit… That’s what is what makes me uncomfortable.

> How would society benefit

The same way that society has already benefited and continues to benefit from everything.

Wealth across all income brackets continues to go up.

> That’s what is what makes me uncomfortable.

Then you are uncomfortable about something that isn't happening.

C'mon. You know what they meant. They are clearly saying that the EFF used to to focus on pretty specific, arguably more bipartisan ideas and initiatives and now it has switched to a much more broad strategy that has strayed from its original mission. Surely, you should be able to understand this pretty basic point.

I do not agree that your statements are implied by GP, I do not agree with the suggestion that the reason for that is my incapacity to understand, and I do not agree with the new statements that you are introducing here either.

They very directly said this.

"but EFF has changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. "

This is saying that they strayed from their original mission. They were focused on a narrow set of beliefs before, and then it changed to focusing on unrelated and more partisan politics.

And yes this was pretty easy to understand.

Its a bit silly to say that they are declining. For its specific niche (mass short form/viral content) there simply aren't any relevant competitors that even come close.

Ok. But mostly its entirely the old software, not the new software, that the bugs are being found in.

Maybe because there’s no critical and widely used software written by LLMs so far? Which says a lot about LLMs are failing to even approach the level of capabilities you would expect from all the hype? The goal has always been, even before LLMs, to find something smarter than our smarter humans. So far the success at that is really minuscule. Humans are still the benchmark, all things considered. Now they’re saying LLMs are going to be better than our best vulnerability researchers in a few months (literally what an Anthropic researcher said in a conference). Ok, that might happen. But the funny part is that the LLMs will definitely be the ones writing most of these vulnerabilities. So, to hedge against LLMs you must use LLMs. And that is gonna cost you more.

So today, most of the vulnerabilities being found by these tools are in code written by humans. Your hypothesis is that down the road, most of the vulnerabilities will be in code written by LLMs.

What seems more probable is that the same advances that LLMs are shipping to find vulnerabilities will end up baked into developer tooling. So you'll be writing code and using an LLM that knows how to write secure code.

Better security is a good thing, no a bad thing, regardless of which companies are more difficult to hack. Hemming and hawing over a clear and obvious good is silly.

> Single market.

Not really, they were getting discounted oil prices previously that they are no longer able to get.

Also, they are a large importer of oil compared to the US, which is an exporter. They have much more to lose from high oil prices than we do.

That just means that you agree that there has been a war going on for 50 years which was the OPs point. You are agreeing with the person you responded to.

No, an unilateral aggression is not a war.

I am not sure why you are operating on such a weird definition of "war" that because 1 thing happened 50+ years ago that changes whats happening now.

Just look at whats happening now. Iran is shooting missiles at all sorts of countries all over the place. (not just the US or israel). Its clearly in a war with a lot of groups right now. It is a silly handwave to pretend like a war isn't going on now, because of something that happened 50 years ago.

Its clearly not unilateral, given how many other countries, that are not the US, have had missiles shot at them by Iran.

As a similar example Russia invaded Ukraine. There is a war going on between them and Ukraine. And when there is a war, countries attack each other. "Who started it" doesn't change the fact that a war is happening.

ok! So if someone uses an existing, checkpointed, open source model then the answer is yes the results are valid and it doesn't matter that the tests are public.

Yes, assuming the checkpoint was before the announcement & public availability of the test set.