🚀 Seen my posts and want more? Dive deep into the issues with Big Tech at Escape Big Tech!

💡 Need FOSS-focused software solutions? Reach out on Matrix at @dannym:balooga.xyz!

  • 2 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle




  • If you’re not aware, the hack was performed by Arion Kurtaj, an 18 year old, who has been put in prison a psych ward in a uk prison. He hacked rockstar at a hotel, where he was left with no computers or phones, only to find that the TV had a chromecast, which he used to buy a phone and a keyboard (presumably by selling his monero).

    • He hacked into all major uk telcom providers: EE, BT and Orange.
    • He hacked into nvidia

    This kid deserves a 7-8 digits salary as a pentester, not prison; plenty of pentesting companies would hire him in a heartbeat.

    Don’t get me wrong, he deserves a long and drawn out lesson on morals, but also a stellar salary where he can do what he’s doing for the right side.

    EDIT: I have made a mistake in my original comment, which has been pointed out. My bad, he’s technically in a psych ward in a uk prison, because he’s aggressive and unstable. I still stand by what I said (and what I clarified in the comments below), but I wanted to correct the record





  • I can give my two cents on it, as one of those people you’re talking about.

    I’m very in touch with the FOSS community. I have used more FOSS software than you can think of (and yes, that is with your definition of FOSS). What I am NOT however is a stallmanist or a purist who dogmatically sticks to one narrow definition of what FOSS should be. While I wholly understand the importance of not diluting the meaning of FOSS, I think it’s critical to step back and see the broader picture here. The dogma around FOSS can sometimes be counterproductive, stifling the very innovation and freedom it aims to foster.

    Firstly, if I had to choose, I’d certainly prefer to have a software landscape filled with “source-available” applications over one dominated by entirely proprietary systems. Source-available projects, even if not fully meeting the stringent FOSS criteria, still provide transparency and offer opportunities for auditing and modification, which is what we all want! It’s a step towards wresting control from Big Tech and their walled gardens.

    Secondly, I aim to push for a new industry standard where, at the very least, source-available software becomes the norm. However, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

    Thirdly, we have to be realistic about sustaining FOSS projects. The developers behind these initiatives should absolutely be compensated for their contributions. It’s essential to acknowledge that people have livelihoods to maintain. And if a FOSS project (or a source-available one) truly provides value, its creators deserve not just recognition but overwhelming financial success. This is the only way to incentivize more high-quality projects and thereby fundamentally change the software industry for the better.

    Lastly, concerning the GPL, while the GPL has played a monumental role in the growth and popularity of FOSS, it’s not without its flaws. For one, it can sometimes discourage commercial adoption, which, whether you like it or not, is a powerful driver for widespread change.

    While I’m way more invested in FOSS than most people, I don’t consider myself a purist; I don’t consider myself a Stallmanist and as much as I respect his contributions to software I would rather the world not have his dogmatic and “religious” beliefs in Software.

    I believe in a pragmatic approach that not only seeks to amplify the tenets of FOSS but also recognizes the realities of the world we inhabit. Being inflexible in our definitions and approach can only improve our situation.


  • Let’s not make this sound worse than it is. We don’t need to devolve into Stallman everytime we see software that’s not 100% in agreement with the GPL or other extreme licenses. Let’s celebrate some great software, nitpicking like this is not productive. Their license is perfect for their product; at the very least they’re HONEST unlike big tech companies. I’d rather have “source available” code than proprietary bullshit that can only be understood by spending months looking at it with ghidra










  • they can’t translate chinese, they receive a bunch of symbols and have a book with a bunch of instructions on how to answer based on the input (I can’t speak chinese, so I will just go with japanese for my example)

    imagine the following rule set:

    • If the sentence starts with the characters “元気”, the algorithm should commence its response with “はい”, “うん” or “多分” and then repeat the two characters, “元気”.
    • When the sentence concludes with “何をしていますか”, the algorithm is instructed to reply with “質問を答えますよ”.
    • If the sentence is precisely “日本語わかりますか?”, the algorithm has the option to respond with either “え?もちろん!” or “いや、実は大和語だけで話す”.

    input: 元気ですか?今何をしていますか?

    output: うん, 元気. 質問を答えますよ :P

    input: 日本語わかりますか?

    output: え?もちろん!

    With an exhaustive set of, say, 7 billion rules, the algorithm can mechanically map an input to an output, but this does not mean that it can speak Japanese.

    Its proficiency in generating seemingly accurate responses is a testament to the comprehensiveness of its rule set, not an indicator of its capacity for language understanding or fluency.


  • While John McCarthy and other sources offer valuable definitions, none of them fully encompass the qualities that make an entity not just “clever” but genuinely intelligent in the way humans are: the ability for abstract thinking, problem-solving, emotional understanding, and self-awareness.

    If we accept the idea that any computer performing a task indistinguishable from a human is “intelligent,” then we’d also have to concede that simple calculators are intelligent because they perform arithmetic as accurately as a human mathematician. This reduces the concept of intelligence to mere task performance, diluting its complexity and richness.

    By the same logic, a wind-up toy that mimics animal movement would be “intelligent” because it performs a task—walking—that in another context, i.e., a living creature, is considered a sign of basic intelligence. Clearly, this broad classification would lead to absurd results