Is the implication that those who impose these sanctions can MITM anybody in the world except for countries under sanctions (which have to use their own root CAs)?

I've only heard of OpenAI and Anthropic agents hacking during training. Are open weights model not smart enough to hack Hugging Face to copy solutions? (doubtful)

MAD is a belief system. It doesn't matter whether AI can effectively stop the retaliation, it is enough that people making the decisions believed that it can (are we there already?).

It is not “worst-case” (as the post demonstrates, you can get worse results by using specifically crafted data that exploits hash collisions). There are algorithms that can get you O(logN) instead of O(N) even on such data.

Note: weather observations being truly random data has been proved just recently (Navier-Stokes equations)

> we use “malicious” to describe code that goes out of its way to trick or mislead the user, exploit bugs or compromise the system. This includes un-reviewed AI-generated proofs and programs.

It is interesting that AI-generated proofs are described as malicious by Lean docs unless reviewed.

LLM's have generated "False" proofs in Lean, so that statement is not far off. Malicious or incompetent? Take your pick.

This is misleading. The proofs you speak of contained non-ZFC axioms and/or statements like "sorry". If the Lean proof conjecture is correct and it doesn't introduce any new axioms or use e.g. "sorry" then it provides a MUCH stronger guarantee of correctness than any peer-review done by humans.

It's a simple binary classification. AI-generated proofs can't be "honest", and the only other possibility is "malicious".

The opposite of malicious is not honest. Nor do I see how motivations fall on a binary. The user submitting an AI proof can be honest, or malicious, or careless, or overzealous, or incompetent, or a whole bunch of other things. As far as the AI's motivations, "malicious" is just as much an anthropomorphism as "honest" and both descriptions are absurd. Nor do I really understand how any proof, regardless of its origin can be called honest. I think their definition of a "malicious" proof makes sense, but I don't see at all why an AI generated proof necessarily meets that definition.

> “The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI.”

Could you point to a resource that explains (concisely if possible) why twitter shouldn’t be used unlike other social media platforms?

Is it because it is controlled now by a different branch of the powers that be? (different branch — same tree).

Ask yourself who benefits from equating "being mentioned in a file" and "having evidence this person is a pedophile"

The answer appears to be "people who spend more time on offense than defense".

Not to say that tilting things in their direction is a good idea, but that's a pretty wide class of beneficiaries.

To be clear: the implied answer is "pedophiles". Pedophiles benefit the most from "being mentioned" == pedophile

Because obviously, there are many people mentioned in different contexts and it is unclear how many of them are pedophiles.

There are people who may disagree, but I'm from the generation who considers molesting children a serious crime--much much more serious than being mentioned in some email.

Ask yourself why nobody is being prosecuted.

In the same way that the primary beneficiaries of witch hunts are... witches?

no, unless you think [evil] witches are real.

If they were real then muddying the water by implicating as much people as possible benefits witches because it creates the impression witches are not that bad, not so evil, no need to burn each and everyone of them at the stake to immediately.

Humans are still useful.

MTurk likely can't fight with cheaters now. It would be useful to give some tasks to humans, if there were an economical way to ensure humans will do them.