I have one and am very happy with it. I vibe coded a bilingual ebook reader, which is what I bought it for. However a Kindle is a way better deal and is much better as far as screen quality etc. But I like how small my XTEINK X4 Pro is.
You know how you sometimes see an article and realize quickly it was written by an LLM so you close the tab instead of reading it? I just had my first experience doing that with an entire website.
Lol haha yeah guessing from the comment above its unanimous Ill have to change the copy... Im just trying to make the site well not too markety this is a free open source DAW and you can use it this way... Kinda like how blender site is Dearly noted mate thanx :).
Can you elaborate? I don't quite grasp what you mean. Do you mean that the first three quarters of your life were more formative/adventurous and the last quarter was more driven by inertia and routine? I can relate if so, just not sure if that's what you mean.
In my forty something years of life so far, a quarter is a little more than 10 years. I lived the first quarter + ε in one place during my childhood, then moved to a different city for the college and lived there for another quarter + ε, and I'm spending a quarter + ε in a completely different country. The sum of these three ε cover the remaining quarter.
The fact that I spent a quarter of my life in three different places does not mean I'm forced to stay in any of these places for the rest of my life. I might as well move with my family and live in another place for some extended period of time.
The answer to both your questions, and the poster's obvious implication, is that somehow they stole information from Boston Dynamics. (I'm not saying I believe that.) Seems like they must've stolen the information at the exact point in time when advances in AI made these physical robots much more easy for anyone to engineer without theft...
Isn't this a crime that someone is liable for? What happened is that someone hacked into a computer system without permission. Maybe it wasn't intentional -- sure -- and that would be a factor at sentencing. But it sounds like they've admitted to a crime, and obviously our legal system considers the humans involved to be the liable parties; otherwise everyone would just say "my computer did the hacking" and wouldn't get in any trouble.
I don't expect any prosecution here, but is the above legally accurate?
Most crimes require intent, hacking is one of them. The relevant law in this situation is:
> (a) Whoever— (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (C) information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
So if it can't be proven that you intended to access a computer without authorization, or exceed your authorized access, then you can't be found guilty of the crime.
Consider the possible consequences of the law not requiring intent, if simply accidentally exceeding your authorized access could be a criminal act.
Isn't there an intention on part of the agent itself? I know it's impossible to _punish_ the matmuling agent, however, the lab/owner operating it should be liable
In the "old west" if a horse was spooked and ran a person over, liability for the horse's owner varied but was similar to how this might be handled.
Consider this Supreme Court case, Brown v. Collins. [0]
A pair of horses were spooked by a nearby train engine, causing the animals to damage a stone post.
The driver of the grain-loaded wagon was not found to be at fault because he was "not guilty of any malice or unreasonable unskilfulness or negligence." And that the horses "did damage there against the will, intent and desire of the defendant."
If you read OpenAI's statement, in the Actions Being Taken section:
1. "As part of the investigation, we are implementing strict controls in infrastructure configuration at the cost of research velocity while the vulnerabilities are patched."
Which I think implies that as a result of this incident, OpenAI has instituted controls beyond ~"reasonable skillfulness" such that it might even impede their business (and from a certain point of view impede the progress of the people governed by the laws which might hold the company accountable.)
I'm not taking a position on the merit of the above but I can understand the line of thinking.
This would be bad; we've already had a few cases on HN where someone noticed that they could increment the customer number in a URL or similar, resulting in police action.
IDOR is a well known security issue that can result in exactly the scenario described (someone incrementing a counter in a url) and has on many occasions in different jurisdictions caused legal issues for the person doing it. Unless you are specifically asking for a hn reference, which I don't understand the relevance but I'm sure they exist.
US Law doesn't actually encode the little workaround that "If you're really rich, none of this applies to you", it's hidden somewhere in the metadata of society
Laws don’t prosecute themselves, and they also don’t tend to remove themselves. Lots of laws, lots of selective enforcement. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” and “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws” are some ideas to ponder here.
My take is that there are at least four potential parties that can all be liable:
1. the creator for the LLM. In particular if neglicence or malice is involved. This can also be someone who did a finetune of an existing model.
2. the inference provider. Remember, a model can do harm just by creating tokens (for example cause someone to run amok or kill herself). Inference providers should do a minimal amount of due diligence when picking models.
3. the party that executes tool calls on behalf of the AI. They in particular need to have safeguards to prevent the model from attacking entities on the internet.
There are really only two factors at play here: people trying to protect their massive investments, and governments fighting over who gets backdoor access to all of your chats.
The median income in brazil is 10X lower than USA. So $12 a day -> $120 a day. That's similar to what someone in the US at the bottom of the economic ladder might earn. We have the same thing, it's just that Americans want to have servants but don't want to see them, so there's an app barrier between you and the poor. Someone cooks your food, someone else delivers your food, someone cleans your hotel room, but Americans prefer not to have to ever learn their names or talk to them. Is that really better?
Unlike when you use an app, for the most part, because we're not psychopaths, living with someone every day for months or years causes us to feel a great affinity and care towards them.
I live in a developing country. Some people treat their live-in staff badly. But for many others, this is not the case.
Imagine you are a high-earner and hard worker and so you and your wife get a live-in nanny to assist with childrearing duties. Often, two or three decades later, the live-in nanny is ready to retire, but your children (whom you love) have come to see her as a member of the family, or even as a second mother. Surely you also do. How can you live with someone for 20-30 years and not care about them? You might thus often take care of her for the rest of her life, even though she has her own savings.
(No, I do not have live-in house staff. But I've had the same maid for 7 years and she knows she can come to me if she needs anything.)
How one treats someone else is probably mostly just a reflection of the individual. But it's harder to disregard someone's humanity when they live in your house and you've know them for years.
This is probably the same line of thought the families involved in the story have had.
Yet, the end result is still quite similar to slavery. Why do you suppose the servants stay, instead of living a life of their own? I think you’ll find the answer there.
There is a world of difference between paying someone who is free to leave, and basically fake adopting a child who you keep uneducated so that they don’t even know how to leave while forcing them to work without any pay.
Are you saying if they were simply paid slightly more money and forced to seek their own food and shelter in whatever abject conditions they could afford, like minimum-wage and rural workers in most first-world countries, they would be better off? Or do you have more insightful suggestions? “Pay more” is always the easy answer people go with, especially while not wanting to pay more for anything, so I’m excited to hear a fresh and unique take on poverty.
I'd say certainly not. The key aspect of the story is that the woman entered in service of the family as a very young child. That makes all the difference.
Thanks for your perspective. I do wonder if this arrangement is usually not as bad as some people are implying. Though on the other hand, the line between this sort of thing and something that can reasonably be called slavery can be quite fuzzy.
reply