You continue to dance around this question on this post - did you or did you not follow Google's open source approval process[1]? Did you have an approved Ariane/Launcher2 entry?
I don't have the time to audit all the code in a JavaScript runtime myself, so I am forced to make assumptions about the quality of the code based on my trust of the authors.
Additionally, even if the code is good today, I am trusting their process will produce good code tomorrow (as migrating to/from bun has a non-trivial cost). A single person approving the code of an LLM is not such a process with today's technology.
The problem is Google appears to label this as a security feature. I'm fine with the feature existing, but it should say something like "require Chrome" or "block Firefox" not "require a secure browser (wink wink we actually mean Chrome)"
But you are Russian, right? I obviously have no idea to the extent GregKH has verified this, but a trivial scan of your online presence revealed to me you at minimum speak Russian and there's decent evidence you live/lived in Russia.
It actually astounds me this is getting any number of upvotes on HN at all - it's so obviously LLM written (or at minimum heavily edited) that it's written in markdown on a platform that doesn't appear to support markdown.
It literally hits almost every major identifier of AI writing. You could probably get similar output yourself with a prompt along the lines of "Write a blog post analyzing the GrapheneOS infrastructure based on public information such as GitHub repositories. Focus on contrasting the security of the phone OS with the unnecessary attack surface and similar decisions of the infrastructure repos."
So if social media removed personalization from their algorithms and only applied them broadly across large demographic groups you'd be fine with them? (Genuine question I'm curious)
KYC is generally a force for good because it prevents fraud. While it is not reasonable for Discord to collect your identity that is a fair requirement for a bank account because money laundering is a serious problem worth preventing.
The reason the 'Epstein class' are able to get away with crimes is because in recent US elections the US voted to elect politicions that intentionally are not investigating those crimes and even pardoned some criminals convicted of them.
An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error.
Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting it's training data. Given the right input or a hallucination it will say the total opposite because it's just a complex Markov chain, not a conscious alive being.
What? No. An LLM cannot reason, at least not what we think of when we say a human can reason. (There are models called "reasoning" models as a marketing gimmick.)
TFA describes a port of a Linux driver that was literally "an existing example to copy".
While the operator did write a post, they did not come forward - they have intentionally stayed anonymous (there is some amateur journalism that may have unmasked the owner I won't link here - but they have not intentionally revealed their identity).
Personally I find it highly unethical the operator had an AI agent write a hitpiece directly referencing your IRL identity but choose to remain anonymous themselves. Why not open themself up to such criticism? I believe it is because they know what they did was wrong - Even if they did not intentionally steer the agent this way, allowing software on their computer to publish a hitpiece to the internet was wildly negligent.
While the product sounds mildly interesting, I see it as a major red flag you think it's ok for either a submitter or reviewer to not even read the code they are working with and ship thousand line diffs of LLM-generated code.
That's the lack of professionalism I give my random PoC personal projects where the only user I can break is myself - at work I am reading every line of every PR I submit or review, even if I used an LLM to assist writing the code.
1: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/releasing/...