I would personally argue that it's a lot easier to say something definitely isn't x, with confidence, than to say it definitely is. I definitely don't know what the surface of jupiter looks like, but I can pretty confidently say it doesn't look like Kansas. I think the better it gets, the easier it will be to spot the shortcomings, because the gap between what it can do well and what it can't will widen. Anything the technology is fundamentally incapable of ever achieving will be made obvious by the fact that it will simply continue to not achieve it. We may not be able to easily define the totality of what exactly it needs to have to count as AGI, but the further it progresses, the easier it will be to point out individual things it's definitely missing.

Finding something funny doesn't necessarily imply you endorse the behavior, believe it to be harmless fun, or even that you don't feel sorry for the victim.

There's entire categories of entertainment media that use "unfortunate things happening to strangers" for comedic effect.

"Ow! My Balls!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWfOMeLk6m0

"go way i'm batin"

Maybe you will read it carefully every single time (and to be clear, I doubt even that) but for the majority of users this will only lead to increasing the already excessive amount of decision-fatigue they deal with when interacting with software day to day. People already blindly click through sequences of confirmation boxes when they think they already know what they're doing. Odds are a million to one you've done that very thing before yourself. Adding even more friction is only going to make the average user spam the "next" button even more fervently.

Not exactly. It's not a "new" attack vector, any software which was malicious would have already been able to attack when you first gave it permission (a prerequisite for this sticky permission issue). If you had downloaded an app and discovered it was malicious the remedy would generally be to uninstall the app, not just "revoke the permission for the one folder".

It's not a good look for Apple, and it's not great that the permission revocation basically doesn't actually work, but any malware that could have infected the system due to this issue would have also been able to infect the system while the permission was still (intentionally) enabled.

> If you had downloaded an app and discovered it was malicious the remedy would generally be to uninstall the app

There are many apps that themselves are not malicious but they run untrusted code via plugins and stuff. Like VS Code for example.

So you gave it a permission and then revoked it thinking all is fine. tomorrow an extension was hijacked and it now reads your files. cool?

It's pretty shortsighted, bordering on intentionally obtuse, to insinuate that the only person that benefits from solving the support problem is the person on support.. Take the example of automatic backups others brought up in this thread. Are you really going to imply that there's zero benefit to the person who didn't lose their data because the app reminded them to turn backups on? I don't disagree that it could be improved with a simple "don't ask me again" style setting, but that doesn't change the fact that every time someone doesn't issue a support ticket, it's because they didn't run into an issue. Any effective solution to a support problem is mutually beneficial for the user as well as the support staff.

If a person says “no” to a prompt multiple times then either they aren’t reading it and never will or they definitely know they are not interested and at some point it needs to stop.

At some point it is just not beneficial anymore.

Hyperbole is a thing that exists. It is also rare that anyone says anything that is meant to be taken 100% literally.

No, because the limitation is not money. More money does not magically make the humans in the profession be able to handle higher case-loads, nor magically produce new lawyers and judges. The bottleneck is time that each case takes to be properly and thoroughly adjudicated, and neither "more money" nor "more people" can accelerate that. While it's certainly correct to say that more staff could handle a larger number of cases, a. more staff = more cases, but more money doesn't speed up those cases, so there's still not really anything to be gained in terms of efficiency by increasing individual case costs. And b. if the solution was as simple as "hire more judges", it would have happened already.

Courts aren't lacking in budget to hire more people. They're lacking in people available to hire, with the specific expertise that they need to fill any gaps. The legal profession, at least in the US, consistently has some of the lowest unemployment rates across the board. Unlike over here in the tech sector, the scarcity is in available talent, rather than available jobs.

In the case of "a hundred million identical cases" handling more concurrent cases would be enough, we don't need to speed up the individual cases.

Getting the right people might be an issue. But the tech sector is actually a great example of how to do that. The tech sector has also grown beyond what it could sustain with just people who are in it for the love of tech, and how it managed to do that would be a great case study. A good work-live balance, consistently high salaries and great outreach were certainly among the contributing factors. All of which boil down to throwing money at the problem in a smart way

"what do you mean there's no more sheep in my field? There's hundreds of wolves!"

“What do you mean people are still on X? No one I know is using it anymore!”

the EFF didn't move from political neutral. The right just moved more right.

It's pretty damn simple actually. Their target audience by and large doesn't use twitter anymore, either.

They're a global issues advocacy organization. "Their target audience" is everyone, or at least it ought to be if they're doing their job right.

Ignoring people of any demographic or political persuasion would be a serious strategic mistake in my opinion.

By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them.

I think you just need to accept that clearly the EFF is not getting engagement on Twitter anymore - either because the academic and professional crowd has largely left for better moderated, more interesting spaces (like I and most of my friends did). Or because they are being downranked by the algorithm.

In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have, clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform.

>By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them.

And if it costed as much as posting on X, they should.

>In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have

And people take issue precisely with that not making any sense, which leads people to look at stuff like

>clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform.

By which I mean "stuff like that statement". Not that they ACTUALLY face any reputational harm (a ludicrous assertion) but that the politics high above have shifted in such a way that they'd agree with something like that.

This betrays their mission and paints a bad picture of their future, which ironically, does incur in reputational harm.

The current electronic frontier is AI and X is the place where high level AI researchers, developers, influencers and users converse. IDK where else has more of the intellectual discourse on AI. Definitely not the likes of instagram or TikTok. Sure, those platforms are more censored and kid friendly, but I don't think that's really who the EFF should be focusing on as their audience.

This is a great point and it makes we worried that EFF might be pivoting to be less about the technological frontier and more about social issues.

I think you're confusing "where high level AI researchers, developers, influencers and users converse" with "the intellectual discourse on AI".

The valuable discussions aren't the same as the hype machine.

I would say that their targeting has changed, more than the audience itself.