Yeah this is problematic because once the PLC controlling entity decides they don’t like you or your PDS in general; they can simply cut your entire system off the federated structure.

Good for Deplatforming Nazis; but Bad for Freedom of Speech; if it’s used to deplatform more than any Nazi or Facist…

Then there’s the issues with having a For-Profit entity controlling the PLC. Bluesky is required by law to prioritize it’s profits and shareholders at least to some extent; if they ever become publicly traded. If they haven’t already.

I suspect we all will have to wait and see if this ever takes off in a direction we want it to. I don’t like how it looks already…as it makes control of your identity onerous and requires you to trust your PLC.

The PLC should be decentralized somehow. That might be something Bluesky has to kick off once they get the project off the ground and more users interested. We will see if they hold to their ideals; or if those ideals are misguided.

Welp; It’s easy enough to download Deno.

Anyone caught with their panties down after they make it a requirement is responsible for downloading Deno to fix it for themselves.

I’m glad they’re doing what they must to keep the project going; and moving this function to a more powerful engine isn’t a bad idea…I hope other YT extracting tools will follow in these footsteps as well; leveraging a more powerful tool ain’t a bad idea…and it might solve some of their own papercuts.

I’d say they’re getting desperate to extort the few victims they manage to infect with this crap if they’re adding an extortion/blackmail component to this that isn’t your bog standard “oh files are now encrypted” malware.

Since ransomware is pretty much known to be common enough; it’s clear that people are backing up data on a regular enough basis to be resistant to it; especially if the criminal is demanding far more money than any data they managed to take hostage is worth to the person. Since cloud services are ubiquitous now; it’s likely they already have critical documents and photos backed up safely and the ransomware fails if all the user does is find someone techy to just nuke the whole system and reinstall everything from their cloud backup.

Using browser activity and webcam spying might seem clever but it’s just a reaching maneuver to extort people who would ordinarily just shrug off a ransomware infection but whom still have poor enough opsec online to be affected greatly by such blackmail.

Except I already covered that by pointing out that those are considered ‘broken tools’; you are also wrong about the argument.

Finding out an AI is misaligned is reason to consider the tool “broken”. People still choose to use the “broken” tool because they think it’s good enough; that also means they accept that risk.

Honestly that’s a good thing though. It prevents the prudes from being shocked by the content and finding reasons to harass creators of NSFW content legally.

It really sucks that it has to be that way for UK users; but if you’re already buying something spicy; you know what it is…and keeping systems in place to enforce more “if you know, you know” type walls up tends to keep prudish people pleased easily.

Not defending the action; just saying it prevents problems later.

No. Not really anyways.

HOWEVER… The AIs in question MUST BE Competent Enough. What your definition of that will be is likely to be flexible and possibly even debatable with others depending on the situation.

What needs to be true is that AI must not be capable of making the same mistakes a human could, but the mistakes that an AI COULD POSSIBLY MAKE are required to be mistakes that any human could reasonably and very easily catch.

Unfortunately the above IS NOT TRUE of current AI LLM type implementations. These LLMs have no consciousness nor ability to reason beyond what a computer could. They have no creativity, despite having the ability to parse language and guess the next word.

If you only learned the rules, grammar and vocabulary of a specific language and were given absolutely zero context or cultural and historical teaching; an LLM is what that would look like. This by itself is not enough to replace jobs.

Is that fact enough to stop heartless corporations from trying it? Hell. The. Fuck. No. They will try it anyways, they will ‘fuck around and find out’ on the off chance that it may save them money. They don’t care that it’s the company selling the ‘AI product’'s job to lie to sell their product. The fact that some companies are that desperate to save cash is telling in and of itself about the state of the world right now…but that’s another topic for another day and another threaded post in another subcommunity on Beehaw.

In this case; the UK is reaching too far. Genuinely speaking; they don’t have the right to fine you if you don’t live or operate in that country. 4chan never did have any legal presence in the UK; even if it did accept ‘donations’ from UK citizens.

At worst; the UK can block 4chan from being accessed in their country and seize any money sent to 4chan by their citizenry in the future. I doubt anyone would care if that’s what they did.

The US specifically even states in it’s constitution that no citizen shall have laws imposed on them by another country that restrict their freedoms.

If it’s a tool, you aren’t necessarily able to control what it does under your direction.

This is false. A tool, by definition, is controlled by the user of said tool. AI is controlled by user input. Any AI that cannot be controlled by said input is said to be “misaligned” and is considered a broken tool. OpenAI lays out clearly what it’s AI is trained to do and not do. It is not responsible if you use the tool they created in a way that is not recommended.

Any AI prompt fits the definition of a tool:

From Merriam-Webster:

2b: an element of a computer program (such as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function

In my opinion; the AI should not be equipped to bypass it’s guardrails even when prompted to do so. A hammer did not tell you to use it as a drill; it’s user decided to do that.

The user alone has the creativity to use the tool to achieve their goal.

AI reads your input and guesses what to output. It’s just really good at that. It has no concept on the actual meaning of those words and how they will be interpreted.

Yep. AI is a tool. The user is still responsible for the right-ness or wrong-ness of how they choose to use it.

Lots of blame could be thrown around instead of addressing the larger issue.

You’re moving the goalposts here to absolve the parents’ lack of care. That isn’t right.

As for jail breaking AI…I don’t think a private corporation should have any input in what I say, believe or think. The hammer manufacturers can’t stop me from using it as a drill. This whole argument goes back to the old who do you blame question…the gun manufactures, the gun stores or the murderers with the guns.

Oh look, more goalpost movement and even reframing my argument, which was simple: The AI should not assist the user in jailbreaking itself.

Seriously; do not reply again. Your arguments did not work.

It’s been my experience that allowing school teachers and admins to confiscate phones on sight is generally a bad idea. They tend to get power-trippy.

The only time it’s really appropriate to take a phone away is when there is a reasonably substantial disruption to the class. Not when a student is harmlessly using the device in the hallway, nor when the student is briefly checking the device, but is otherwise engaged normally with the education being provided.

I’ve seen some schools take and hold phones until the parent retrieves them; which is theft of personal property.

Should the student be forced to store the phone away securely if they’re using it at an incorrect time/place? Absolutely yes. But they should also be guaranteed to be able to retrieve it after the final bell or when they go to leave campus with no questions asked. Yeah that does mean that maybe the principal/school officer has to walk you to the phone storage area/locker to enforce the rule. That’s fine. Schools have the right to punish the breach of their rules, within reason.

Bell to Bell bans are fine in my honest opinion.

I do not acknowledge the mandate that all children must have constant access to their phones. Students who have a legitimate reason to carry their phones on their person at all times should be supported by their parents with a request to the school administration. School admins who receive such requests by parents should accept them with no questions asked, and only confiscate the device from the student if they are found to be misusing it or disrupting a class with it; no “If I see it; I snatch it” rules are to be allowed.

If schools have to issue “Phone-allowed Hall Passes” constantly; it disrupts class. If a student can be issued a personal pass that discloses they’re allowed to keep their phone on them, per parental request for a legitimate reason, think medical reasons or reasons related to disability and note taking, there’s less interruption if a student needs to make a critical phone call to get help.

I do believe schools should provide and encourage device storage. Students of appropriate ages should be allowed to access them in storage during break times. Teaching students the ability to self-disconnect from their mobile devices is important. This can be done efficiently and without cruelty. Responsible students with fewer phone infractions can be permitted to carry their phone more often or during wider hours of the day; while those who do misuse their phones or disrupt classes with them can be forced to keep their phones in storage from bell to bell as the law suggests.

I’ll be blunt. I think the parents are blaming the AI platform unfairly. There’s not an excuse for lack of parental oversight and monitoring of the teen’s mood.

On the other hand; I don’t think it’s exactly desirable for the AI to help you jail break it. That should probably be fixed.

AI is not capable of doing wrong or evil. It is a tool; as a hammer or a notepad is.

Looks harmless on the surface; but yet, is still in fact, boiling a frog.

Thankfully the rollout seems fairly slow; should be enough time for most of you who find this concerning enough to switch to a custom ROM which eschews this safeguard.

With luck this will be even something we can turn off. I certainly would demand the ability to turn this security setting OFF even if it ships “Default - ON” to protect normal users who do not have a need usually to sideload unsigned apps.

I don’t like it myself. If we are not given a choice; I will likely flash my device over to an Open Source ROM that respects my privacy more.

For developers; this might be a good time to make sure that there are people who can “register” semi-anonymously and share the signing keys. Genuinely, I think something could be figured out; and private registrations could become a thing; Where one person capable of registering simply vouchsafes a number of developers they personally know by sharing necessary signing keys where they too contribute to an app project.

I think the whole implementation can’t be immune to key sharing, and I do think it’s possible to have one dev deal with the devil…Google in this case.

While I understand some projects will rightfully not want to hand information over to Google; usually because they’re being legally attacked by Google; I believe it will be possible to simply use wider shared keys to misdirect and deflect any unwanted legal action.

My partner often says it’s a lot of “middle class” workers.

Many things have been happening over the past 5-10 years that target or diminish the middle class wages overall. Basically companies and such are racing to the bottom in a way…and the way they built things out incentivizes this race rather than slowing it down.

I can’t imagine why anyone would allow an AI to interact with files that have not been thoroughly backed up and secured on a disk that is detached from any system the AI is running on.

Secondly, I cannot imagine why one would ever permit the AI to use move commands when getting files from a directory that is external to the directory you explicitly designate as the AI’s workspace.

Third, why would someone not make sure all the files are in the right places yourself? It takes maybe 5 minutes tops to crack open a file explorer window and do the file operations exactly as you intended them; that way it’s ensured that a ‘copy’ operation and not a ‘move’ operation is used on the files, while doing any versioning, backing up or checkpointing that is desired.

Last of all; why would someone use an LLM to make simple commands to a machine that they could easily do in one CLI command or one GUI interaction? If one can type an entire sentence in natural language to an AI, and they are skilled enough to set up and use that AI agent as a tool, why not simply type the command they intended, or do the GUI interaction necessary to do the task?

Again; I must iterate how wrong you are.

People can and do travel and move to different countries with their consoles. There can be multiple accounts per console. People can feasibly have two consoles right next to each other connected to different networks and swap carts between them. People can change consoles because they upgraded or because they have multiple consoles in the household. And people can and do resell carts all the time.

These situations do not matter as the logic for detection is very simple. Is cartrige A with serial ABC in more places than is reasonably expected of that cartridge? With physical copies that limitation is exactly 1 place, 1 system at a time. Irrespective of who it’s registered to or who owns it. Any cartridge that has been in more than one place at one time and your system cert is logged and inserted in the next upcoming ban wave / wave of system cert revocations. This revocation goes live on Nintendo’s servers. Your system will not get the Online Service kiss of death until after this happens.

Other checks such as location, account, how often it happens and such can and may happen after this check to automatically limit false positives and prevent you from being instantly banned. But their system works; and it’s consistent as to which condition triggers it; that’s when the identity of any physical or digital game title is in more places than it is licensed to be in. (Actively caught piracy).

And there is no way to differentiate those scenarios even if you can/could track each cart individually.

Except that they can, and do. See other comments around for the how and why…it’s related to Nintendo Gold Points.

There could be a record of which consoles have played which carts, but that gives you exactly zero information about how many owners the cart has had.

There absolutely is. An unmodified Switch console reports this sort of telemetry on a regular basis to Nintendo; and it’s clear that they can ban your system based on bad Title IDs; (basically fake title headers, or dumped cartridge headers used to conceal flash cartrige usage)

Switch accounts aren’t associated to consoles and physical game entitlements aren’t associated to accounts. Any account can be in any console at any time and instantly show in in multiple places and while you could account for travel times it’s a pretty pointless thing to do that, to my knowledge, Nintendo is not doing.

They don’t have to be. Just have to log that your System Certificate reported a new title. This System Certificate is used in all traffic to Nintendo as it authenticates your system to it’s network.

They literally have no way to do so. There is no tool in the toolset to distinguish a cart someone else bought at the store from your own carts you bought at the store and then moved from a Switch 1 to a Switch 2.

This is absolutely not true; it’s absolutely possible and even suspected that individual game carts themselves are signed with unique serial IDs or even full certificates or cryptographic signatures.

I think it’s more likely the previous owner did dump the cart on to a MIG Switch or similar ROM cart. While the NS1 cannot tell the difference; it can still be updated to do so.

I think it’s likely that in order to play titles online; your Switch 1 has to get the Cart Serial number from the cart and package it all up nicely and sign it neatly with the certificate from the system. So if said Nintendo Switch 1 already transferred that title out to a Switch 2, then there would be a record on file with Nintendo saying “NS1 with Serial XYZ transferred Title cart ABC with serial DEF to Switch 2 with serial GHI”. Then when you put that cart into a different Switch 2 it notices and informs Nintendo of the new title and cart serial…which then immediately picks up on the change of ownership.

That might not raise red flags if you handed the cart over to your friend next door; but it certainly might raise red flags if you air-mailed the cart over to your buddy a few countries over.

In general, I disable the ability of getting a ‘read receipt’ if at all possible. In the case of some rare platforms that don’t allow this; I also warn people that "Seeing a ‘read receipt’ indicator does not mean I was available to reply.

In general; people who hang on to this little indicator are also committing a larger social faux pas, and you should { [(yellow/red) flag] / address / handle } it accordingly based on your relationship to that person, your goals and the situation.

Whether that means ‘calling them out’ or kindly explaining what it actually means or explaining your approach to communications; the behavior of expecting something to happen on the receipt of a read receipt needs to be discouraged in my personal opinion.

It will be the end of Nintendo. …Eventually. Of course these things take time; and people in general are slow on the uptake; especially uninterested masses.

Eventually though; they will grow too bold; brick a larger number of systems than is absolutely necessary to intimidate people away from piracy and basically piss off the gaming userbase; at which point the Steam Deck and related hardware will likely draw all casuals in.

This is problematic; and a perfect example why end users should not be trusting Windows 11, 12 or later, or any software that Microsoft outputs from now on.

AI CAN’T WRITE SOFTWARE, ONLY HUMANS CAN CREATE AT HIGH LEVELS NEEDED TO CREATE NEW SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS At Best, AI can tell you maybe what libraries might help you get 50% the way there; but it cannot, and should not ever be used to do all the work of a human.