When you enter the wipe passcode, iirc the screen flashes and the phone reboots / wipes - that’s how they were clued in that he ‘did something’ and that’s why he’s being charged and faces 5y in prison for the act.
A hidden wipe would have prevented this.
Called bullshit as soon as I read they were accusing him of kiddie stuff.
This is why GrapheneOS’s passcode feature is more likely to land you in trouble - it’s too “hostile”
I’d rather it load an empty profile while it wipes everything in the background.
I’ve recently been pondering the future impact of AI on coding, while trying to filter out the current noise surrounding the issue (since all it does is muddy the waters). There’s a lot of amateurish supposition to follow, but since you appear to be getting fewer thought out responses than “AI-bad-kill”, take it with a pinch of salt.
There was a recent article on the open source software that props up the internet - (paraphrasing here) one of these repositories had (pre-AI) a user called Jin Yue or Jin Yin who made hundreds of useful pull requests, gained the trust of the repo maintainer and was eventually given admin privileges, only to surrepticiously merge malicious code when no one was looking (eventually discovered ~a month after the fact). I imagine that (likely) state-sponsored attempts like these will make more use of AI in the future for quicker turnaround, and that maintainers will also eventually use AI to quickly audit submitted code for security flaws.
As far as open source software channels are concerned, I imagine there will be a decent amount of low effort malicious software that makes heavy use of AI, submitted to these channels. In such an environment, whether or not users are permitted to candidly disclose AI usage without reprisal will likely make a huge difference, since honest disclosure would invite security-minded people to audit fault-prone AI-assisted code - something that malware distributers will try to avoid at all costs (thereby allowing a distinction that can be leveraged to form between the two).
Just my two cents.
Even considering rhetorical goals and context, without “I particularly dislike this guy”, it’s an enormous leap to twist those words that way.
Stop blaming the pandas.
Thanks for your contribution to the pile.
Then you’ve missed the point of the change entirely. Splitting email addresses into public and private-facing addresses is one thing. Reusing passwords is entirely another evin if both are related to securtity.
One example.
Got something that has more than 18 participants split into 3 groups for a total sample size of 6 people per control group? Not to mention its focus on AI assisted essay writing, measuring cognitive debt (not decline), using EEG to infer performance of higher cognitive function, etc.
Vague criticisms, fallacious reasoning, highly emotive language, little response to attempts at discussion (though some might engage in disingenuous discussions of shifting goalposts here and there to discourage particularly vocal engagees from future participation). So I’d say that Linus is just the latest convenient scapegoat in an Anti-AI ‘trend’ that will have little impact on the rate of AI adoption in the long run.
Sucks that I waited until now to try to form a measured opinion on AI because now all the discussions on the internet are hot garbage.
As someone who did study computer science and has worked in embedded processor space
Using an argument from authority to denounce someone in authority and their arguments? Cool. Might’ve worked if I hadn’t seen you mention recently that we shouldn’t use AI ‘because Trump and his cronies do’.
AI use demonstrably leads to cognitive decline
source?
Man I’ve seen others try to twist those words the same way even though it’s on the same level as one of those elementary reasoning problems you’d find on a basic IQ test (Jack caught an std after interacting with koalas - a) all koalas transmit stds, b) some koalas transmit stds, c) pandas are free from stds, d) Jack should spend more than $5 on his hookers).
So unless you actually are stupid and this is why you’re choosing to (defensively) misinterpret his words by picking the equivalent of c) here, it’s clearly wilful misrepresentation of a very reasonable statement - “Of the people I admire, most don’t shy away from cutting edge sutff”
I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it
So your stance is “trust without verification”.
I’m curious how you came to this conclusion
And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.
(But) Both smart people and dumb people are using them
This is not the gotcha you seem to think it is…
You know who else isn’t shying away from the new tools? Trump and his cronies.
Hard to think of a poorer argument against AI use.
In line with the rest of the comments here so far where there’s lots of anti AI rage but little to no coherent arguments that specify how Linus using AI to code is a bad thing. No specifics, lots of vague beating around the bush, highly emotive language.
Enforcing what? It’s up to your email service to adopt the change. The way it currently works was probably okay for the early days of the internet when people had just started using emails, but now that so much private and sensitive financial information passes through your email account, it makes little sense that the same credential you use to login to your email account (email id) is also what you must use when some random website forces you to register in order to access it, just so they can send you massive volumes of unsolicited spam.
Certainly a simpler change with more potential to do good relative to the ease of enforcing a convoluted passkey-slash-usb-slash-save-this-file-somewhere-safe implementation
Amazon/whatever login:
Email login:
There. You’ve solved 90% of online fraud that begins with website(s) leaking your credentials and someone combining leaks to gain access to everything in your life via your email (including bank, socials, porn habits, whatever).
This sounds overly optimistic bordering on delusional. There are countless examples of courts siding with authorities based on nothing but their say so and this case is a perfect candidate to ‘make an example’ out of someone uncooperative with said authorities. It’s easy to discount the stress of having a potential 5 year term hanging over you when you’re not on the receiving end of it.
Unless you’re deliberately looking to fight the fight (unlike the majority of people who find themselves in this situation), the plausible deniability provided by a more discrete wipe would keep both your data and you personally safe.