These large consultancies staff at a lot of places that aren’t big tech. While they certainly have some good talent the overwhelming reputation with body shops is that they place some pretty mediocre talent.

The vast majority of YouTube takedowns are done through voluntarily moderation, not via copyright takedown. They require no more due process than moderation of posts on this or any other website.

Copyright was invented in England and was globalized by France by a treaty signed in Switzerland. The US didn’t join the treaty until 102 years later. Up until 1989 the Berne Convention was stronger than US copyright law.

That's a neat factoid, but my point was about repudiating the current boneheaded US foreign policy rather than anything to do with where copyright was invented.

The foreign policy of calling out silly censorship in Europe and violations of fundamental freedoms and making European countries implicitly acknowledge it by blocking a US site?

Seems great. Wish Europe didn't censor free speech.

And my point is I don’t know why “Europe” would want to evade law that was their entire idea to begin with… and that they widely continue to enforce.

Copyright in Spain is automatic and life plus 70 years. Same as the US and every country in Europe except for Monaco and San Marino where it’s 50.

You can run openclaw locally against ollama if you want. But the models that are distilled/quantized enough to run on consumer hardware can have considerably poorer quality than full models.

Also more vulnerable to prompt injection than the frontier models, which are still vulnerable, but less so.

This is actually the scariest part of the article for me.

It's clear we've got to the point where at a glance it is hard for those who are otherwise unaware to tell the difference between AI slop and organic content.

If nerds on HN can't tell the difference between an AI slop influencer and a fairly well-regarded human influencer... how can we expect the rest of the public to tell the difference when it comes to science, health, civics, politics, etc???

We're at the cusp of a distrust and misinformation cliff that is going to be terrifying in magnitude.

The article didn't suggest that the video mentioned was AI slop, it correctly recognised it as human generated.

I know he said it was not AI, but he but still described it as “slop”, lumping it in with the other examples. And said it was a video “where a woman decides to intentionally start a fight with her boyfriend” which isn’t really an accurate description. She’s a well known comedian playing an obviously exaggerated character that pokes fun at relationship dynamics.

My point here isn’t simply that “people can’t differentiate between AI and not AI” (although that is an issue for some) but that the prevalence of AI slop lowers the trust of ALL content even when they know it isn’t AI generated. This author was so fed up with the content they were being served that they were quick to dismiss other content along with it at a cursory glance.

Indeed. He thought it was not AI slop, but the kind of low-effort slop ruining Facebook.

Your opinions may vary, but this is not one of those super clickbaity social media personalities; people like her because she's funny.

I suspect that the direction of these situations often depends on how your initial email is routed internally in these organizations. If they go to a lawyer first, you will get someone who tries to fix things with the application of the law. If it goes to an engineer first, you will get someone who tries to fix it with an application of engineering. If it were me, I would have avoided involving third party regulators in the initial contact at least.

Yes, this routing is common. German energy company recommended by a climate organization had a somewhat similar vulnerability and no security contact, so I call them up and.. mhm, yes, okay, is that l-e-g-a-l-@-company-dot-de? You don't want me to just send it to the IT department that can fix it? Okay I see, they will put it through, yes, thank you, bye for now!

Was a bit of a "oh god what am I getting into again" moment (also considering I don't speak legal-level German), but I knew they had nothing to stand on if they did file a complaint or court case so I followed through and they just thanked me for the report in the end and fixed it reasonably promptly. No stickers or maybe a discount as a customer, but oh well, no lawsuit either :)

In the early internet days, you could email root@company.com about a website bug, and somebody might reply.

> If it were me, I would have avoided involving third party regulators in the initial contact at least.

I'm surprised to see this take only mentioned once in this thread. I think people here are not aware of the sheer amount of fraud in the "bug bounty" space. As soon as you have a public product you get at least 1 of these attempts per week of someone trying to shake you down for a disclosure that they'll disclose after you pay them something. Typically you just report them as spam and move on.

But if I got one that had some credible evidence of them reporting me to a government agency already, I'd immediately get a lawyer to send a cease and desist.

It seems like OP was trying to be a by the book law abiding citizen, but the sheer amount of fraud in this space makes it really hard to tell the difference from a cold email.

Bluesky?

That's a butterfly.

In a corporate environment no-camera/no-phone policies are sometimes also used for DLP reasons, out of expediency. Oftentimes it is more profitable to hire less trustworthy people (read: cheap labor) and simply make it inconvenient to steal data. This usually works good enough when you're trying to protect widget designs and not human lives.

Yeah, this is why any high security information facility has physical security controls. Give someone infinite time and physical access and they could copy it off with clay tablets and chisels.

Then you fix that loophole by subtlety altering the phrasing or formatting that you send everyone

That's why I said you paraphrase, rather than using the exact phrasing and formatting of the original doc.

Include slightly different details in each version. Then if the paraphrase mentions one of them, you've identified the source.

Yes, I'm aware of that approach.

It's likely tougher than it seems; the big important bits that the news will care about have to match up when checked, and anyone with high-level access to this stuff likely has a significantly sized staff who also has access to it. Paraphrasing reduces the chance of some minute detail tweak being included in the reporting at all.

You also have to actively expect and plan to do it in advance, which takes a lot of labor, time, and chances of people comparing notes and saying "what the fuck, we're being tested". You can't canary trap after the leak.