They have "clarified" elsewhere on here that the normal citizenry get a legal exemption [waves hands mystically] somehow, and that they're only blocking people when they legally have to.
Obviously (to the rest of us) if the agreement says otherwise, then they're saying that it's LE that is forbidding the citizens of these countries, and it's not (entirely) the government's fault, which completely contradicts what they're trying to say.
We should probably be clear that this document is most likely a backside-covering exercise; it exists so that people can't sue LE for denial of service without a just cause, and so that the US can't prosecute them for intentionally shipping cryptographic services, or some such rubbish.
If you live entirely outside the US legal system, or its multifaceted tendrils, and if you don't make too much noise, you may be fine. Obviously that's a far cry from a "right to free speech" level of protection, but then LE have no obligation to provide that to people outside the US, and arguably non-rich citizens within the US lost that a long time ago.
As with anything word-gamey involving internet, you will probably have to trim down your dictionary. While I'm very glad my "sxxg" beat their "txxt", the first probably shouldn't be allowed (although there are non-rude definitions) and the second definitely shouldn't have!
Analogies are not the problem. In fact, an analogy is like a good knife; sharp, removes problematic parts, and totally unethical unless it knows the motivations of its wielder.
Seriously though, yes it is obvious why analogies are so often used, but I think you have it the wrong way round. They are a form of proof by negation; you don't have to find a thing exactly like the subject of the argument.
It's a way of fighting against bad arguments; If I say China is bad because X, Y and Z and also, their flag is red! They must be evil. If you then tell me that this argument could also be applied to the Red Cross/Crescent, you have negated my argument by analogy. You don't have to negate every argument I made; but at least then we can treat X, Y and Z on their own.
The problem with this writeup is, there really are no other powerful arguments in it.
And I'm pretty sure C4 is great for controlled demolition of highly dangerous buildings. Or do you want adventurous people to hurt themselves?
I think that's where most people thought that this article was going.
Shall we just have that debate anyway? :D
The big question that I hoped the article might address: Can AI ever be ethical (within the norms of what the average Jo(e) considers ethical), or have we forever poisoned the well?
If the technology and mathematical underpinnings have been created on fundamentally immoral grounds (IP theft, energy / water excesses, etc) what would we have to do to produce an entirely - or even mostly - ethical AI stack?
Is it even possible, given the dependencies on (Lithium / Israel / fossil fuels / conflict mining / capitalistic exploitation / any other morally questionable underpinning you might think of) to re-do the work to such a point that we could "black box" our way to decently function LLMs?
Assuming that comes with a caveat of rolling back the technological progress, how far back do we have to go? It feels like the bronze age is a step too far, at least on the basis of my "average Jo(e)" test above - but what is considered reasonable?
Then - and only then - would it make sense to ask how to make the content generation itself ethical.
It feels like the Nazi medical science issue all over again, except nobody really cares as much about this one. But socially, it feels like an anti-capitalistic uprising is on the horizon, so maybe if that happens, a moral aversion to the state of AI might piggyback onto it?
Not that I want it to. Quite like AI really. Feels like the background immorality radiation of the earth is quite high anyway, maybe AI isn't the thing to fluff our feathers about. But it's certainly an interesting thing to mull as we weep over our non-gm oat milk babyccinos, pitying at the state of the world.
This article in a nutshell: AI will never be ethical or safe, because no tool can ever be ethical or safe, without it knowing the complete motivation of any person using it and every person who might receive its outputs.
Wasn't the article I was expecting! Not sure it helps much, except maybe if you wanted to muddy the water of ethics-and-AI discussions.
It's interesting; I'd imagine very similar design briefs (friendliness, breadliness, etc)
The ICBINB font is almost a semi-serif, almost like a sans serif that's slightly melted, whereas I'd say the crumpet is fully serif. The "e", "L" and "v" are pretty different. And I'd say the ICBINB font lends itself better to tighter spaces, whereas the crumpet font seems to beg for more space.
But certainly, I could see one being used to replace another in a pinch - but I'm not a font specialist (graphologist? Is there a word for a person who studies fonts?)
No, I agree. That said, I think a lot of that particular shift is down to a) increased individualism b) an emphasis on the healing power of personal boundaries and c) the rejection of unity as an overriding good.
People are far more happy to cling to the tribe they choose, and the tribe that has their back, over the tribe they were born to. Then, there are those who see that trend as dangerous to society (where, in many cases, society is really just a proxy for their own power or social status - ironically as viewed through their own chosen tribes more than the tribe they were born to)
That is to say, I don't think it's the political views that are splitting the families. Individuals have decided that care for each other should come secondary to those political views. I feel like there used to be a certain amount of care in the "sweeping under the rug" - it was the tribe against the world, it was protecting the family image as much as it was protecting the individual from society. These days, being a thing "in private" means being a thing alone, and that's no longer a compelling thought when external tribes are willing to embrace you.
Which probably applies to software tribes just as much as family ones.
I feel like BDFLs are akin to the concept of village elders; they're not immune to corruption or scandal, but they often have this beloved status that can paper over a lot of cracks. That's probably dependant on their leadership style - the hard headed (Linus, DHH) vs the grandfatherly (Matz, Van Rossum).
Which, going back to your note on geopolitics, leads me to wonder: Is it just that more power corrupts more, or is it that (modern-day definitions of) democracy require a desire for power? I guess as the "FL" part of "BDFL" comes to bite more of the communities, we'll see better how different succession styles have different effects. I also wonder if the analytical nature of the individuals within the "populations", and inability to police defectors will mean uprisings will be more successful, either in causing BDFL attitude adjustments, or just overturning the community completely (for example, there's already a lot of momentum for a complete fork of Rails)
(Edit: having submitted this, I now see others have had very similar thoughts! Definitely an excellent conversation topic)
Obviously (to the rest of us) if the agreement says otherwise, then they're saying that it's LE that is forbidding the citizens of these countries, and it's not (entirely) the government's fault, which completely contradicts what they're trying to say.
We should probably be clear that this document is most likely a backside-covering exercise; it exists so that people can't sue LE for denial of service without a just cause, and so that the US can't prosecute them for intentionally shipping cryptographic services, or some such rubbish.
If you live entirely outside the US legal system, or its multifaceted tendrils, and if you don't make too much noise, you may be fine. Obviously that's a far cry from a "right to free speech" level of protection, but then LE have no obligation to provide that to people outside the US, and arguably non-rich citizens within the US lost that a long time ago.