Aside from being obviously written by a LLM, this scenario reminds me of the "LLM, say you're alive"; "I'm alive!"; "Oh my god..." meme.
You're allowing the attacker not only direct access to modify the source material, but giving them multiple informed attempts/turns at optimizing the output in their favor. This is like a worst-case insider attack; what systems are supposed to be resilient to an undetected attacker with 'root' access?
This would be slightly more interesting if the attacker could consistently one-shot the task, but it's taking half a dozen attempts...
The extraneous small-caps labels are one of the main idiosyncrasies of AI generated markup. I wonder how much of this is a "scaffolding" technique to help the model build stable designs. But was it reinforced in RLHF or an emergent behavior of the models?
How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?
What was "military" about those motorboats? You're suggesting the same military has vision into dozens of little boat's barrel contents but can't see hundreds of children in a school yard?
What is there to take seriously regarding this strike other than the facts as presented?
There were 900 strikes in 12h, and only one target involved a strike on a school, and huge coincidence that target was a dozen meters from a military compound and was in fact part of that military compound not long ago.
It's quite easy to accept that this was a horrific mistake. Whether you agree with the idea of striking Iran at all is up to you, but once they "went hot", precision strikes on military targets were successful in 900 cases, and it's plausible that one precision strike was issued incorrectly.
It doesn't bring back the kiddos. It also doesn't mean it's a war crime. It's right to be angry about that strike or even the larger war if you oppose it, but spurious legal justifications for outrage aren't required - it can be wrong even when legally justified or plausibly just a mistake.
Dozens of innocent children were destroyed in a heinous crime. Like they were nothing. They were cherished and loved by their families. It will be a scarring tragedy in all their lives. And some guy is like 'ah, darn, poor kiddos!'
That's true. It should never have happened. It was also quite possibly an accidental strike caused by outdated intel, even if the strikes were arguably part of unnecessary hostilities.
But nothing anywhere in any of these increasingly pathological threads do I see evidence of a war crime. Tragedy yes, intentional crime, no. Preventable yes, cold blooded intentional child murder no.
This is a war crime. A school full of children were murdered. It doesn’t matter what justification is presented. If you kill an entire school full of children, “whoopsie!” isn’t a valid legal defense.
Welcome to war. War is bad. Innocent people always get caught up in war and suffer from it. We should do our best to avoid war. But, unfortunately, due to a mix of game theoretical incentives, information asymmetry, and human nature, war isn't going away. We can still at least try to minimize innocents' suffering from war, though.
It was clearly a tragedy. Very few Americans--certainly I've never met one--support that strike in retrospect. Instead they are angry that such a terrible mistake was possible and they generally want a thorough investigation and targeting procedure reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Americans hold their military to a high moral standard. But wars don't have to be fought so cleanly. Certainly the Golden Horde had no compunction about genocide. If acknowledging our shared humanity with innocent victims and expressing remorse for their deaths is ridiculed, then we're primed for a descent into nihilism, wanton cruelty, and mass slaughter.
No you aren’t. Your repeated comments show otherwise. You have trivialized their deaths, ignored other findings and demonstrated a distinct lack of empathy. Do better.
I am not defending this morally, but these are clearly a group of the least competent stewards of the military in a long while. They were "completely clear on OPSEC", with a left-leaning Atlantic reporter in the signal group chat. This bombing also coalesced support in Iran and had a big rally around the flag effect. Data in Iran is hard and the timetable was extremely fast, again, due to incompetence and the inability to constrain a vassal. So its appalling to say, but a bunch of morons with LLMS and outdated targeting, pushed to meet the objectives of corrupt idiots is almost certainly the cause. I personally consider it a war crime, but I am not sure if it meets the legal definition.
Is it easy? What if an organization avoids liability through shell companies and financial engineering?
"The company managing your warranty was acquired by Foobar Inc and their sole building burned down destroying all records. We apologize for the inconvenience."
I think they should be responsible for accurate listings, swift refunds, taking down misleading products, and banning repeat offenders. I somehow think making Amazon "responsible for what they sell" goes far beyond that in ways that are not reasonable. Only those that make products should be responsible for them.
Well they don't ban repeat offenders. Trying to directly regulate the banning of repeat offenders seems more difficult and less fruitful than giving the store fallback responsibility for the warranty.
Australia gives the store primary responsibility and it seems to work well for them.
I guess if they aren't prohibited from having a contract with the manufacturers to have them fulfill or reimburse warranty claims, then it would be acceptable to to require stores to honor it. They'll be more careful about who they allow in.
Amazon should somehow be known as the company that sells crap then, they need a reputation like AliExpress and other stores can take the quality reputation sector.
When most fortune 500 companies burned brand-goodwill to sell disposable versions of products, it is credulous to believe all problems are external. =3
That's what bonds are for. US customs requires prepaid bonds for other things. Importers who don't have enough assets would have to post a bond to cover repairs for the product. They get it back at 10 years.
"brazen and identified" is doing a lot of work here. IIRC the cable thing was an anchor accident, and everyone is doing psyop campaigns (Western psyops being far more advanced and sophisticated than their enemies). Nord Stream was definitely not an accident and we know who did that.
Implying that Russia somehow invented or is the undisputed leader in "psyops" is a popular hallmark of a low-information civilian, a narrative promoted by arch-propagandists like Peter Pomerantsev and Anne Applebaum.
"Propagandist" is not a palatable job title, so propagandists often masquerade under different words. For example, the US government's official foreign propaganda agency is called "US Agency for Global Media".
If Anne "it's okay to kill journalists in wartime" Applebaum is not a prominent Western propagandist, then who is?
This is a surprising development. I wonder how much of it was opportunistic, since Talos 1.14 added sandbox isolation based on Linux namespaces (?). Perhaps the reasoning was "let's just go one step further and support full containers/VMs instead of inventing our own sandbox mechanism".
You're allowing the attacker not only direct access to modify the source material, but giving them multiple informed attempts/turns at optimizing the output in their favor. This is like a worst-case insider attack; what systems are supposed to be resilient to an undetected attacker with 'root' access?
This would be slightly more interesting if the attacker could consistently one-shot the task, but it's taking half a dozen attempts...