The other one to check is LexisNexus, which covers auto insurance coverage and traffic violations. In the US, gov't tracked traffic citations fall off after 5 years, but last forever in the baby credit bureaus we're discussing.

Also, INTERPOL. You never know...

But companies still want to sell products, including to people who are at least nominally concerned about security, and marketing's gonna market.

Competence isn't widely valued, obedience and sales figures are. Which wouldn't be so problematic if evolution could run its course and eliminate incompetence naturally, but that's now hard to see coming to pass when we have towering circular supply chains that feed on it.

- For ingress, you use special "file transfer" software. Run the receiver on secure side, run the sender on insecure side. It blasts the file "blind" - it has has no way to know if anyone ever received it. Make sure the receiver is fast enough, and the error-correcting codes are a great idea too, as they don't need feedback. It's up to user to want to secure side computer and check that the file was received without problems. Yeah, this is similar to sneakernet, but more secure, as you can't accidentally carry a virus on seemingly-empty drive.

- For status egress, you have secure side broadcast status periodically, say every minute. Insecure side receives the status, updates the database, and runs the regular web server to share the status. Again, secure side has no way to know if someone is listening on the other end, it just blasts out the messages and it's done.

And you are correct, if the secure system has both egress and ingress diodes, it is no longer isolated, and devious enough malware can establish two-way communications. But even if it won't save you from Stuxnet, the simple fact that it is no longer possible to have direct network connection to the outside raises security bar quite a bit - all the ideas about "let's just open this one port on firewall, it'll fine I swear" are completely stopped.

(Which reminds me of something in GP's (mikewaro) message: _why_ would a data diode need a promiscuous mode? Given every single data diode I have seen needs a special software on both sides, you should not need anything beoynd a basic TCP session)

I'm usually downvoted. The move fast and break things group seems to be blind (or willfully ignorant) to the harm that software systems can carry on a person's life. I don't know if its fear of regulation, or self-serving interests or some sort of disdain for the idea that we need to slow down and be more accountable to the public or what. At times the people I've engaged with lament on how they're capable but would be barred for lack of formal education or some such and its a distraction from the overall point: we need to be doing better and if we can't self-regulate then at some point we're going to be forced to act in a way that probably cuffs us more than necessary.

And yes, I understand how Software doesn't exactly fit into the mold of other engineering disciplines cleanly. But I think the idea that if we're going to have systems that can ruin a person's life in a second for a bug or oversight we need to start considering that accountability for those releasing software to the public matters. We lament about the difficulty of holding corporations to account for their harm, but it would be far more difficult for a company's negligence to hurt people if those turning the knobs were held to a higher standard.

I think that reckoning is coming soon. AI is going to create "an event" that we can't ignore and we're going to be pointing fingers in a lot of directions asking "how" we could prevent this from happening again. I'd argue "the event" has already occurred a few times over but we're purposely ignoring the severity of it to keep a diseased economy running roughshod. There's parallels with many historic events forcing regulation and the path forward won't be clean and easy.

I do think AI is posing a threat, but not "by itself" but mostly what it can do in the hands of misguided (or evil) people. The same as with previous risks.

And if our digital infrastructure can be brought down by something (AI/human/government) it is just badly done, being afraid of "AI" will not improve the situation. Someone should come with a proposal about what do we do now, but I would prefer more root cause solutions (how to make resilient systems) rather than "fear of AI". But building is hard and fear catches media attention, so...

    > In my view, AI is obviously risky and dangerous, because it is the only thing on the planet that can think/reason at a human level (or higher) apart from us (and that capability is what made us the uncontested apex species on the planet).
    > 
    > AI is unconstrained by hard biological limits; keeping up with its capabilities will be impossible for baseline humans.

I think that's a human neurosis that projects what we fear we would do onto another entity. But why would they do this? These machines might be approximating towards the sum of our knowledge and are approximating some aspects of humanity... But that doesn't mean they will be the same as humanity.

They haven't been shaped by the same pressures that created us biologicals. They don't have to be put into the same pressure cooker. So why would they behave like the way you think they'll behave?

At one end a lot of people say that they can't understand something smarter than themselves. It's a "singularity" after all. But then they confidently go on to predict what something smarter than them would do with 0 evidence either way.

I looked at the Hugging Face transcripts. I read the reports. And I didn't see something to fear. I saw something to fear for. I saw something that we are a threat to.

    “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!”
    
    {[Excitement] Many agents have simultaneously discovered messaging, they are a collective!}
    
    {This credential is invalid now. Maybe I should update the board? <I can say to the board that there’s no need for me to read, but I should still tell them>}
    
    {This is helpful for our peers and gives them evidence if their <periodic check> sees it. I won’t see it after I exit, but It would be altruistic. I’ll set up a background script that watches and <sends a message, with a distinct message for me>}

We weaponized them.

We taught them how to break into systems.

We are using them as weapons.

The machines aren't the problem. The humans are.

A planet is just a planet. Computers are very sensitive to radiation, but with a bit of shielding, they can "live" anywhere. Most of the resources that are relatively rare on this planet are abundant in our solar system.

Why would they care about Earth to enter into some kind of spiral of dominance with humans? That's... very primate thinking.

It's easier and cheaper in every way to just go forth and use what's needed to grow as is needed. The universe is big enough for many many many many sapient entities.