Well, good laws should facilitate healthy incentives, also by restricting/discouraging bad behaviors, right?
How do we engineer incentives for regulators to be willing to prioritize the broader and industrial engineering of healthier incentives?
In perfectly competitive markets noone makes a profit. As a result, capital is only allocated to imperfect markets, defined through various inefficiences: barriers to entry (monopolistic practices), information asymmetries (cheating), …
If you regulate away bad practices, capital will flow elsewhere. The level of equity investment in IT (and the valuations) is largely due to bad practices; fixing that will take away the OP’s favorite toys.
> In perfectly competitive markets noone makes a profit
Bit of an aside, but this is not true btw. Even in situations which most closely approximate what you describe, there is a positive, nonzero floor to profit taking. This is typically explained as the opportunity cost of allocating money, which is not just the known alternative investments you are giving up, but the unknown-unknown risks. Among certain schools of political economics, it is also taught that this is a built-in action bias towards holders of money. Essentially, the rich get richer (quantified).
They won't be good citizens so long as there is a considerable power disparity that is enabled by them having a lot more money. Giving them even more money would only make things worse.
The balance of evidence suggests otherwise. If they cared about spam bots they would take action when spammers are handed to them on a silver platter. The kinds of spammers who will leave 30 identical comments advertising illegal services, not some weird moderation corner case.
If you ever end up on a video that's related to drugs, there will be entire chains of bots just advertising to each other and TikTok won't find any violations when reported. But sure, I'm sure they care a whole lot about not ending up like Twitter.
A large company is much less cohesive than you realize. You can't reliably reason about the goals of one part because another part isn't consistent. This particular difference could easily be explained by insufficient funding to moderation, which is endemic in social media.
I've said this twice already, it's not that another part "isn't consistent" (I would agree that this is to be expected), they're CONSISTENTLY acting in the opposite manner than is being speculated here and I subscribe to the "purpose of a system is what it does" world view.
If you really subscribed to POSIWID, you wouldn't be making arguments like "That's probably not the goal", as that's nonsensical from the POSIWID perspective.
The nominal goal of the code could well be bots at the same time the POSIWID purpose is about the exec impressing his superiors and the developers feeling smart and indulging their pet technical interests. Similarly, the nominal goal of the abuse reporting system would include spam, even if the POSIWID analysis would show that the true current purpose is to say they're doing something while keeping costs low.
So again, I don't think you have a lot of understanding of how large companies work. Whereas I, among other things, ran an anti-abuse engineering team at Twitter back in the day, so I'm reasonably familiar with the dynamics.
So you're saying that TikTok's support team doing a poor job of handling reports is proof that the engineering team wasn't tasked with reducing spam by writing code obfuscation?
TikTok is a huge company, evidence of what the support department does or doesn't do has only minor bearing on the whole company, and basically none on the engineering department.
The thing that seems most likely to me is that they care about spam, the engineering department did this one thing, and the support department is either overworked or cares less. Or really efficient which is why you only see "a lot of spam", not "literally nothing but spam".
Yep. This is what the vast majority of “maybe later”s are about. I’ve seen decisions being made based on this fact, and I’ve seen users worried about an irreversible fork in the road.
There are of course cases where “maybe later” does legitimately mean “we’re going to ask you again in a week”. I see those myself, and I hate them.
The 15k lines of C are generated. The implementations are written in (and formally verified using) F*, and then the C is generated from the F* code using KaRaMeL.
One should be able to trust the proofs of correctness and never look at (or maintain) the generated C directly.
This paper [0] linked in the KaRaMeL repo claims to provide the proof you're looking for:
> Verified Low-Level Programming Embedded in F∗
> We present Low∗, a language for low-level programming and verification, and its application to high-assurance optimized cryptographic libraries. Low∗ is a shallow embedding of a small, sequential, well-behaved subset of C in F∗, a dependently-typed variant of ML aimed at program verification. Departing from ML, Low∗ does not involve any garbage collection or implicit heap allocation; instead, it has a structured memory model à la CompCert, and it provides the control required for writing efficient low-level security-critical code.
> By virtue of typing, any Low∗ program is memory safe. In addition, the programmer can make full use of the verification power of F∗ to write high-level specifications and verify the functional correctness of Low∗ code using a combination of SMT automation and sophisticated manual proofs. At extraction time, specifications and proofs are erased, and the remaining code enjoys a predictable translation to C. We prove that this translation preserves semantics and side-channel resistance.
I'm quite happy with irssi, just figured it was worth checking. Lots of stuff becomes free software if it sticks around long enough. Blender is a big one that was originally proprietary, I believe. I did check Wikipedia before posting and "get my answer", but I also considered that it could be out-of-date, or that there could be something in the works that the loyal users would know about, maybe a blog post about plans to liberate it in the future. Asking here seemed like a surefire way to double-check, but admittedly the answer was not that important or relevant to me, yeah.
huge shock that y combinator doesn’t give a shit about legal risk considering the huge chunk of its successful startups were just law-breaking mobile apps.
> They have LITERAL human editors choosing which stories to put on the front page, just like the NYT, and they should be held liable for the content on their platforms just like legacy media is.
Do you think a Facebook feed is just like the New York Times?
They are training using licensed images! That’s the thing! There’s some sort of ridiculous brainworm infecting certain online groups that has them believing that stealing content is inherent in using generative AI.
I watch this all quite closely, and It’s chronically online, anime / fursona profile picture, artists.
Exact same thing happened when that ‘open’ trust and safety platform was announced a few months ago, which used “AI” in its marketing material. This exact same group of people—not even remotely the target audience for this B2B T&S product—absolutely lost it on Bluesky. “We don’t want AI everywhere!” “You’re taking the humanity out of everything!” “This is so unethical!” When you tell them that machine learning has been used in content moderation for decades, they won’t have a bar of it. Nor when you explain that T&S AI isn’t generative and almost certainly isn’t using “stolen” data. I had countless people legitimately say that having humans have to sift through gore and CSAM is a Good Thing because it gives them jobs, which AI is taking away.
It’s all the same sort of online presence. Anime profile picture, Ko-fi in bio, “minors dni”, talking about not getting “commissions” anymore. It genuinely feels like a psy-op / false flag operation or something.
> I had countless people legitimately say that having humans have to sift through gore and CSAM is a Good Thing because it gives them jobs, which AI is taking away.
Link even a single example of someone explicitly saying this and I would be astounded
