> ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments
To me, this definition reads as only including "agentic" uses, or automated decision engines. An image generator does not operate with any autonomy. If you interpret the "input" part loosely enough to include it, then you'd likely include old and simple techniques like seam carving [1], which very few would consider "AI" in the contemporary sense
What about the practical difficulty of defining "AI"? You could explicitly call out, say, diffusion models, but that would leave future holes for new AI technologies
What about Photoshop being driven by Claude Cowork? That my seem asinine, but it is a serious consideration
I found this definition here [1]
> ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments;
But that barely clears anything up. Even worse, I would not include a simple user-prompted image generator under this definition, as it is not operating with any autonomy. Or, you interpret it so broadly that seam carving [2] is considered AI, let alone content-aware fill
> You do realize that a full kernel vulnerability like this allows you to feed falsified information to SafetyNet?
Are you sure that's true? The whole reason why modern Safetynet/Play Integrity uses HSM data where possible is that you can't spoof that with root (without a microcode bug). It does not trust the running OS by design
I just tried GrapheneOS's https://attestation.app/ on a stock Pixel, and all of the OS version info shows in the "hardware verified" section
There's a lot of confusion around attestation, some of which is IMO done intentionally.
First there is Android's attestation framework. That does actual hardware attestation, as used by GrapheneOS, and supported by literally no app whatsoever.
Then there is SafetyNet, now Play Integrity. Depending on what level of integrity checking is being done, this will do a combination of cursory surface-level software checks, delegation to the aforementioned hardware attestation framework, and several other checks.
Importantly, SafetyNet/Play Integrity rejects some devices that pass hardware attestation (e.g., Graphene OS), and accepts some devices that fail hardware attestation (fairphone, many cheaper devices with broken ROMs, etc).
e.g., fairphone leaked the private key for their attestation, but many of their devices still pass SafetyNet, while some other devices that pass attestation but have known bootloader flaws are blocked by SafetyNet.
Because this isn't strict cryptographic verification, but a mess of heuristics and guesswork, it's a constant cat and mouse game.
What Google really achieved here is to make it expensive enough that no casual user can bypass it to e.g. cheat in Pokemon Go, but only a determined attacker has a chance.
And with "determined attacker" I'm not just talking about states, but even e.g. movie pirates breaking DRM to rip Netflix movies.
Of course, even full cryptographic attestation isn't perfect, and can be bypassed with enough effort. As shown by the famous iPhone hardware jailbreak, where you drill into the SoC and solder directly to the CPU's internal wiring.
And, as usual, "risk/threat to democracy" is used to mean "support for parties I don't like"
It wasn't long ago that the Twitter shoe was on the other foot, and many of those complaining now were quite happy to endorse the right of private companies to promote/suppress speech at will (with no hint of irony regarding their alleged ideological views on private companies)
What I don’t get about these centrist takes is that even if you believe this, can you not recognize the difference in motivation and intention of the speech? For example, to me it’s wild to equate something like Democrats wanting to promote Covid safety and Republicans wanting to promote the idea that Californian elections are fraudulent. One is an earnest attempt for public good and the other is a cynical attempt to undermine democracy.
It's hard for me to get a grip on, and I'm putting thoughts into other peoples' minds here, but many Republicans genuinely saw Covid safety protocols as a cynical attempt to undermine democracy. They see stories like this:
The only reason you see differences of motivation and intention is because you're in one of the groups.
My take is leftist (and I don't mean American liberal), anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist, anti-genocide, and I don't think there's any difference of motivation and intention in the US. The "bad" group voters (D or R) feel they're protecting the poor, the kids, the families, etc., while the other was attempting to undermine democracy.
To talk only of speech, the Democrats were in charge when the demonisation and criminalisation of anti-genocide protests started in earnest, they were in charge when TikTok was banned for Israel, they were enthusiastically in charge when cancelling/censoring/fining for "hate-speech" (== whatever the gov wants it to be) became a legal gray area (and was then adopted by liberals the world over, see UK). Every other problem the Rs are criticised for (war, corruption, poverty, genocide!!!) was started/facilitated/ignored by the Ds, but people forget it instantly. Except, of course, paying lip service to identity politics.
I have no reason to believe the world would have been much different today had Democrats stayed in power. Look at how the "leftest" Dems vote. Actually, criticising the US as a leftist would have been harder: you'd be instantly viewed as a Nazi.
Both groups are sides of the same coin when it comes to keeping power and subjugating others to it, more or less violently.
Edit: to avoid posting empty criticism, what I mean is that to find a left party, or a party actually attempting to make life better for the poor and disenfranchised and not wanting to kill those who happen to be located near oil and Israel, you have to look away from the Rs and the Ds.
Much agree on this. The article is clearly biased. But one thing it mentions is that even when disabled people don't change their mind. Perhaps some politicals views are more rational and sound. Can the reverse be true? We don't know.
>And, as usual, "risk/threat to democracy" is used to mean "support for parties I don't like"
It can also mean highly influential support for ideologies I don't like - like fascism, authoritarianism and ultranationalism.
> many of those complaining now were quite happy to endorse the right of private companies to promote/suppress speech at will
A few years ago, bog-standard content moderation was limiting the reach of enormously+reasonably unpopular ideologies like fascism, authoritarianism and ultranationalism. Groups who were profoundly unhappy with these limits would bullhorn complaints of intentional suppression and censorship.
With the release of the Twitter Files (which exposed content moderation), it became clear that many folks were unable to differentiate between actual, long-established content moderation methods and actual directed suppression and censorship.¹
This deep misinterpretation seemed to flow from the ignorance of what content moderation looks like at scale. That core misunderstanding was often amplified and made worse when historically-moderated individuals filled in that vacuum with their long standing preconceptions.
The upshot are today's efforts to raise the visibility of far-right viewpoints thru coordinated crafted messaging² and thru actual suppression of non-right viewpoints thru new controls over platforms and thru often unaccountable misuse of governmental powers.
Our present conditions seem to well reflect and align with the article author's analysis.
Fascism is a more complex but is basically is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology. It's adherents tend to
Exalt Their Nation and Race
Embrace and Support Authoritarian Governance
Condone Militant Nationalism and Violence
Prefer Social and Economic Regimentation
Parrot Populist Rhetoric
(credit Wikipedia, Britannica, et AL)
You can't expect anyone to take seriously warnings against not just nationalism, but ultranationalism, when it is the policy of most western governments to dismantle their national identities:
This might be a "yes, and" moment, but the article specifically points the largest feeders of contemporary thought leaning algorithmically in one direction. It doesn't matter if that direction is left or right, either way shaping thought in one direction is anti-democratic and that's what should worry all of us.
So the question isn't "Do I like this party?" The question is "Are democratic institutions, elections, courts, and constitutional limits being respected?" That's a standard that can be applied to anyone, regardless of party. Both siding things because the biden admin made people mad about twitter is frankly disgusting.
> The question is "Are democratic institutions, elections, courts, and constitutional limits being respected?" That's a standard that can be applied to anyone, regardless of party.
The thing is, sometimes the decisions of (other) democratic countries can be pretty braindead. The UK and its age verification nonsense, Spain and its holy crusade against La Liga stream pirates, the US and anything to do with abortions/LGBT/Black people/whatever the book ban lunatics are trying to push today, Germany's infamous "Pimmelgate" and "Mehrzweckeier" scandals...
Suddenly, the question really is, whose laws to follow to what degree.
I don't think that is the question, and in the absence of algorithmic social media feeds I don't think anyone would consider it to be. Pimmelgate was a dispute for Germans to resolve under German law; it's absurd if anyone outside of Germany feels entitled to have an opinion about it.
No, it isn't - the US doesn't really have strong anti-discrimination laws and is not enforcing them with the current administration, the EEOC is mostly toothless, and I repeat, both siding things like "DEI" or "age verification" as bad as "throwing out elections" is disgusting and are not comparable.
> Interesting provocative article, I bet it will be praised on some Microsoft sponsored conference.
"Win32 is the only stable Linux desktop API" has been a common observation in the Linux community for years. I'm not sure why you're acting like it's a Microsoft-sponsored smear
Microsoft may have indeed won first place via dirty anticompetitive tricks, but Linux/*nix would need a similarly stable API first in order to have won at all. And obviously plenty of companies and initiatives have tried (from Red Hat to Valve), and yet progress has still been glacial
Also nobody's saying it's a particularly good API, but it is stable. As "Worse is better" famously observed, the technical elegance of a standard has barely any effect on its adoption, versus more boring social and commercial factors
> ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments
To me, this definition reads as only including "agentic" uses, or automated decision engines. An image generator does not operate with any autonomy. If you interpret the "input" part loosely enough to include it, then you'd likely include old and simple techniques like seam carving [1], which very few would consider "AI" in the contemporary sense
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving