The OP is about telecom. I took a look and learned [1]:
> The telecommunications industry in China is dominated by three state-run businesses: China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile.
A little slippery to bring China into the telecom free market discussion and contrast it with “Western-style” while failing to mention the structure of its telecom industry.
> The OP is about telecom. I took a look and learned [1]:
Untrue - in the context of the OP, telecom is just an example. Look at the title.
> The telecommunications industry in China is dominated by three state-run businesses: China Telecom, China Unicom and China Mobile.
"More competition" doesn't mean "no monopolization". Communications are political everywhere, I'd be surprised if they were a subject of less control in China than in the US. However, even on Amazon and even with tariffs, there's more competition between Chinese sellers than between sellers of other origins.
That is why they were pushed away from this. At least with vibe coded software, errors may prevent compilation, then when we're past that simply bad experiences, before they become human catastrophes.
> Any competent high schooler knows about water activity and sterilization. At least at the fundamental level.
Your high school taught you that while olive oil and garlic can be stored in isolation for quite a long time without issue, mixing them creates an anoxic environment which Clostridium botulinum, an obligate anaerobe found almost everywhere in the environment (and in this case the garlic) but not normally in dangerous quantities because of the oxygen in the air, thrives?
The closest my secondary school got to useful warnings about modern environmental hazards were: (1) do not cross railways, (2) electricity is dangerous, (3) do not mix bleaches, (4) wear safety goggles, (5) if you smell gas, open windows, do not flip light switches, and (6) HIV exists (but they didn't mention any other STDs at all). (Well, OK, schools also said "do not run with scissors" and "look both ways before crossing road", but that and similar were more primary school things, and they said "don't do drugs" but they lied about Leah Betts' cause of death).
The cooking classes were basically just "here's how you make a cake" and "here's how you make pastry" (and a teacher asking us to write it up but pretentiously telling us that she hated seeing "I think it tasted quite nice" because all the students always wrote that, but somehow simple thesaurus substitution was enough to satisfy her on that).
> I doubt most models refuse providing recipes without 0 risk of death.
0, like 1, is not a real number in probably. They represent infinity-to-one odds for/against a thing.
More concretely, seat belts and speed limits and minimum tire tread thickness and blood alcohol content are all part of road traffic law, even though all four of them combined still do not lead to "0 risk of death".
> LLMs are —if anything— ridiculously proficient at making random code compile.
Not ridiculously. Interestingly, but not ridiculously. Especially back when the example I linked you to happened, thus leading to the highly visible failure mode necessitating this kind of thing (the red teamers will have seen similar in private testing). You could have "rapidly improving", but with even with the rapid competency time-horizon improvements shown by METR, they're 80% on tasks which take a human 1-2 hours. If that was also true for biological stuff, they're probably currently able to enthusiastically write custom gene sequences that sometimes work, other times are the genetic equivalent of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47614622
> What was your point again?
LLMs are a power tool with the bare minimum of safety guards for all the normal people using them thoughtlessly, and I'm replying to someone who is surprised that even those minimal basics of guards exist, both for their own sake and the sake of others around them.
Metaphor: a table saw may come with a saw-stop, which means you can't butcher a carcass with it, and people who imagine(!) working as butchers hear this and act surprised that table saws increasingly come with them by default because meat slicers don't.
I did not know about the trivially-produced botulinum toxin potential of garlic sitting in olive oil at room temperature.
I'm going to guess that asking a cloud censored/non-abliterated LLM would not get me this information, despite it being useful as a warning, not just as a way for bad actors to poison people.
> and I'm replying to someone who is surprised that even those minimal basics of guards exist
Misrepresentation of where I'm coming from. I literally failed to consider the weapon potential of biologics in this case (silly me). I was only thinking about the fact that they cured (essentially) my psoriasis.
Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is futile; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...
> Misrepresentation of where I'm coming from. I literally failed to consider the weapon potential of biologics in this case (silly me). I was only thinking about the fact that they cured (essentially) my psoriasis.
Thank you for the correction.
> Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is nonsense; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...
Guns are an excellent metaphor here, especially as with "good actors with access to the same tools" is a pattern-match to the incorrect statement that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"*. Much of the world outside the USA neither has, nor wants to have, the 2nd amendment. Are gun bans perfect? No, of course not. But the UK (where I grew up) has far fewer homicides as a result, and last I heard when polled on issue even 2/3rds of the UK police feel safe enough to not desire to be armed (though three quarters would agree to carry if ordered).
Similarly, good actors using an AI can only cover the malignant use cases they themselves think of. Famously, the 9/11 attacks were only possible because at the time nobody had considered that anyone might weaponise the vehicles themselves until they saw it happen, which was also why of the four planes only one saw the passengers fighting back to regain control.
In particular, "bad actors will always find uncensored AI" suggests that all AI are equally competent. Right now, they're not all equal, the proprietary models are leading. Of course, even then you may argue that the proprietary models can be convinced to do whatever via the right prompt, and to an extent yes, but only to an extent.
The malicious users can only be slowed down (as opposed to the normal people who simply put too much trust into the current models who can be mostly prevented from harmful courses of action with the same guards). But AI provides competence that bad actors would otherwise not have, so even a simple guard will prevent misuse by nihilistic teenagers whose competence does not yet extend to the level of a local drug dealer let alone the competence of a state-sponsored terrorist cell.
> Our machine learning approach relies on different assumptions—(i) that there was no measurement error for COVID-19 deaths in hospitals and (ii) that a model trained on in-hospital deaths is transportable to out-of-hospital settings.
Whether these assumptions are valid is highly debatable given various incentive structures applied in in-hospital settings over the period studied.
Absent enforcement, proceeds from fraud are invested in more fraud. Given that fraud exists in this area, the shape of the growth curve suggests fraud as a plausible driver.
It won’t and it never has. It’s not like society post-1945 developed the phenomenon for the first time in human history. Even in this country, New Jersey was the last state to ban women voting in 1807 iirc.
To be fair, I’m not sure blatant lying in investor updates alone constitutes fraud. There needs to be harm (or the intent thereof) AFAIK. The other party needs to be using that information to make a decision. If you give me a dollar and then later I tell you I’m actually Beyonce, is that fraud? Or am I just a lying sonofabitch?
If I give you a dollar and you say it’s being spent wisely, Beyonce loves the product, you’re about to land Taylor Swift as pro bono public ambassador… yeah that’s fraud.
Lying in investor update was merely the tip of the iceberg. There was lots more, fabricating customer traction pre-investment, paying oneself back-pay for months spent twiddling thumbs pre-investment (before I was involved), etc.
My lesson from the whole kerfuffle was that investors (at least the ones I’d dealt with) prefer hustle over integrity and execution abilities.
It seems like you already understand what dual intent means- it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card. Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs, which are another step on the path to a GC. The government has an entire series of steps laid out for H1-B visa holders to follow to get a Green Card. I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent' is going to give you more info than I could realistically fit in a comment here
> it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card.
It's not though. It's a DoS policy wrt of issuing non-immigrant visas.
>Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs
So? The government issues I-140s to non-H1Bs too. Not having any US visa and never having set foot in the US is "a path to Green Card" if H1B is one too.
>I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent''
I was hoping you'd do that and find for yourself how wrong you are.
This might not be a fruitful discussion because I get the impression you're a bit ideologically dug in on this. I would like to think my subject matter expertise is reasonably high given that this intersects with my IRL job. But yes:
"Congress enacted INA § 214(b) in 1990, explicitly excluding H-1B visas (under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)) from the presumption that nonimmigrant applicants are intending immigrants. Unlike most nonimmigrant categories requiring proof of no immigrant intent, H-1B omits any foreign residence requirement in its definition, enabling holders to pursue permanent residency without jeopardizing status" https://global.temple.edu/isss/faculty-staff-and-researchers...
"The Immigration Act of 1990 created the modern H-1B program as a "bridge" to green cards, allowing immediate work while navigating permanent residency processes that included labor tests. Senate Judiciary Committee reports emphasized streamlined H-1B procedures without recruitment delays to avoid productivity losses, with senators like Arlen Specter and Slade Gorton highlighting needs for quick access to skilled talent. This dual-intent design responded to prior issues, like the Schwartz case, where immigrant intent prosecutions prompted the 1990 carve-out" https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...
I am just factually dug on this. You are correct that H1B applicants can intend to immigrate. It's what "dual intent" means. It does not mean the H1B is an immigrant visa or a "path to a Green Card" like you claimed originally. The CATO is not a government and them saying it's a "bridge" is not different than redditors saying so. This is why I asked you for a government statement. There is not one, because it's illegal to immigrate without an immigrant visa, which H1B is not.
"The key move was Congress’s amendment to INA §214(b), the provision that says every visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant unless they prove otherwise. In 1990, Congress inserted an exception for H(i) and L nonimmigrants — i.e., it carved them out of that presumption. The current codification notes still show that this came from Pub. L. 101-649 §205(b)(1)" https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009...
Congress also added INA §214(h). In the 1990 Act, that new subsection said, in substance, that being the beneficiary of a preference petition under §204, or otherwise seeking permanent residence, does not count as evidence that the person intends to abandon a foreign residence for H(i)/L purposes. That is the clearest statutory confirmation of dual intent.
"Congress originally intended H-1B to permit temporary work status while also allowing pursuit of permanent residence. The House Judiciary Committee report reinforces that reading. It had a section titled “Dual Intent” and explained that this problem was especially burdensome for H and L beneficiaries, and that the bill treated the filing of an immigrant petition as not, by itself, proof that the person meant to abandon a foreign residence" (attached link is the legislative history) https://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/wp-content/uploads/HR-...
You asked and LLM but don't seem to be able to understand the reply. Again, you proclaimed that dual intent means something else initially.
>"H-1B is “coming temporarily,” while permanent residence is handled through the employment-based immigrant categories in §203(b) and adjustment under §245(a)"
Exactly! Do you even read what you pasted from the prompt?
reply