Is Yubico actually claiming it is more secure by not being open source?
sweng
joined 1 year ago
Isn't that the point of the article? It's not open-source currently, but will be, once the AGPL option is added.
Whether it's a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.
It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.
They don't accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.
On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren't good?
there is no way to do the equivalent of banning armor piercing rounds with an LLM or making sure a gun is detectable by metal detectors - because as I said it is non-deterministic. You can’t inject programmatic controls.
Of course you can. Why would you not, just because it is non-deterministic? Non-determinism does not mean complete randomness and lack of control, that is a common misconception.
Again, obviously you can't teach an LLM about morals, but you can reduce the likelyhood of producing immoral content in many ways. Of course it won't be perfect, and of course it may limit the usefulness in some cases, but that is the case also today in many situations that don't involve AI, e.g. some people complain they "can not talk about certain things without getting cancelled by overly eager SJWs". Society already acts as a morality filter. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Free-speech maximslists exist, but are a minority.
Well, I, and most lawmakers in the world, disagree with you then. Those restrictions certainly make e.g killing humans harder (generally considered an immoral activity) while not affecting e.g. hunting (generally considered a moral activity).
So what possible morality can you build into the gun to prevent immoral use?
You can't build morality into it, as I said. You can build functionality into it that makes immmoral use harder.
I can e.g.
- limit the rounds per minute that can be fired
- limit the type of ammunition that can be used
- make it easier to determine which weapon was used to fire a shot
- make it easier to detect the weapon before it is used
- etc. etc.
Society considers e.g hunting a moral use of weapons, while killing people usually isn't.
So banning ceramic, unmarked, silenced, full-automatic weapons firing armor-piercing bullets can certainly be an effective way of reducing the immoral use of a weapon.
While an LLM itself has no concept of morality, it's certainly possible to at least partially inject/enforce some morality when working with them, just like any other tool. Why wouldn't people expect that?
Consider guns: while they have no concept of morality, we still apply certain restrictions to them to make using them in an immoral way harder. Does it work perfectly? No. Should we abandon all rules and regulations because of that? Also no.
Being in the government often leads to reduced popularity.
Consider the options:
- No early election. RN popularity continues to rise, and they take the presidency and parliament in 2027. Result: Complete power for 5 years.
- Early election. RN wins, and forms a new government. While being the ruling party, they lose in popularity and lose the elections in 2027. Result: limited power for 3 years.
To me it seems quite clear that option 2 is preferable to 1 for Macron.
How is that the implication when there are lots of other explanations, one even given above?
If the target costs more than the missile (including the opportunity cost), and/or the target is a high priority for repairs, it makes sense to target it. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
It's a bit unclear to me what you refer to with "their argument". What argument exactly?