> AI labs are tech companies, not SCIFs. They’re pretty elite as tech companies go, so by median corporate IT standards, it’s hard to exfiltrate data from them. But by state intelligence agency standards, it’s not hard.
Back when I lived and worked in Silicon Valley, and had a blog where I enjoyed being provocative, one of the questions I liked to pose to people on Twitter was "Which of your coworkers are spies, and which country do they work for?".
People frequently accused me of being a conspiracy theorist just for asking this, but, and I'm saying this sincerely and not just rhetorically, the real tinfoil is believing this _wouldn't_ happen.
For a concrete example: Google is one of the most strategically valuable companies in the world. If nothing else: they have full read access to ~90% of all the emails ever sent. That is the most valuable thing on the planet that spies could spy on. If a spy agency _didn't_ have people infiltrating google, _that_ would be insane, because it implies that they're a grossly incompetent waste of money.
Even to this day, I am somewhat surprised at how cavalier most FAANG-tier people are regarding the very real security threats they must necessarily face on a daily basis.
It has always seemed absurd to me that the gun control people in this country focus on controlling _guns_ but more-or-less ignore ammunition. It seems like from a practical perspective, it would be more effective. After all, a gun without ammo is a paperweight, but ammo without a gun is a bomb.
But hell, don't point out the enemy's blind spots for them, eh?
it also seems like deft lawyers could make an argument along the lines of
"The second amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms, but it says nothing about ammunition. Your right to bear arms is not impacted by restrictions on the sale of ammo. Especially when you can make black powder at home"
This would obviously be ridiculous but it seems at least somewhat less ridiculous than many other arguments that hold legal water, at least in blue states.
> AI labs are tech companies, not SCIFs. They’re pretty elite as tech companies go, so by median corporate IT standards, it’s hard to exfiltrate data from them. But by state intelligence agency standards, it’s not hard.
Back when I lived and worked in Silicon Valley, and had a blog where I enjoyed being provocative, one of the questions I liked to pose to people on Twitter was "Which of your coworkers are spies, and which country do they work for?".
People frequently accused me of being a conspiracy theorist just for asking this, but, and I'm saying this sincerely and not just rhetorically, the real tinfoil is believing this _wouldn't_ happen.
For a concrete example: Google is one of the most strategically valuable companies in the world. If nothing else: they have full read access to ~90% of all the emails ever sent. That is the most valuable thing on the planet that spies could spy on. If a spy agency _didn't_ have people infiltrating google, _that_ would be insane, because it implies that they're a grossly incompetent waste of money.
Even to this day, I am somewhat surprised at how cavalier most FAANG-tier people are regarding the very real security threats they must necessarily face on a daily basis.
> Ammo vending machines
It has always seemed absurd to me that the gun control people in this country focus on controlling _guns_ but more-or-less ignore ammunition. It seems like from a practical perspective, it would be more effective. After all, a gun without ammo is a paperweight, but ammo without a gun is a bomb.
But hell, don't point out the enemy's blind spots for them, eh?
Chris Rock on bullet control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
it also seems like deft lawyers could make an argument along the lines of
"The second amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms, but it says nothing about ammunition. Your right to bear arms is not impacted by restrictions on the sale of ammo. Especially when you can make black powder at home"
This would obviously be ridiculous but it seems at least somewhat less ridiculous than many other arguments that hold legal water, at least in blue states.