All writing is open to interpretation by the reader.
Some people let punctuation or grammar mistakes ruin an entire text or post for them, because they choose to focus on those flaws, rather than looking past them and taking in the content itself.
"this was written/assisted by AI" is starting to feel like next-gen "this has spelling/grammar mistakes in it, therefore it is invalid".
First time I’ve seen this take, but man it rings true.
I remember having teachers in middle school who seemed draconic to me in their emphasis on proper grammar and punctuation, however as an adult I’m lucky to read an email that contains paragraphs, much less proper punctuation.
Times are changing, and it’s up to the individual to decide how they want to respond to it
This doesn't even account for the fact that while the tech industry's dominant language is English, lots of people in our industry count English as a second (or third/fourth/etc) language, so they might use AI to help them write in English in an effort to be better understood by others.
To arbitrarily dismiss all AI-assisted writing shows a real lack of understanding of the possible reasons one might use it beyond the "lazy author" trope that everyone likes to throw out there.
Writing the compiler and standard library in Zig is probably the greatest dog fooding opportunity for the Zig maintainers. In doing so they get to feel the weight of every change they make to the language, for as long as they don't simply hand that task over to a chatbot.
It's also an open source project, so the end product is as much the codebase as it is the binary releases.
I've interacted enough with largely computer generated codebases to see that ergonomics problems easily grow and accumulate when LLMs remove the burden of dealing with those problems from the developer. I've always considered my laziness an asset. Now I would qualify that by saying that laziness is an asset for as long as it compels you to keep things simple and easily understandable so that the cost of making changes (whether that's measured in human gray hairs or tokens) doesn't grow with every change.
I agree that it depends on whether you want humans to interact/interpret the software at all, but I'd push back on "mostly human preferences." Do you think that how something feels is mostly a matter of human preference? Intuition and aesthetic sensibility are distinct from preference, and both play a role in research mathematics and scientific discovery as well as in art. There is also (human) cognitive affordance which I think is important for human code review. That said, I'm sure there is a language and coding style that optimises for both human and machine processing that is much better than what we have today.
Video by GN has a little bit of info (but not a lot). Basically they made it so that the pipes only accept input from MSI signed software + the pipes can only invoke MSI signed executables.
> pipes only accept input from MSI signed software
This does not inspire confidence. I'm assuming the pipe exists so that some GUI process running as the current user can perform privileged actions since the other end of the pipe runs as SYSTEM. At this point, just inject a thread into that GUI process and send the command - the service will think it is coming from MSI software, because it is.
The "only invoke MSI signed executables" mitigation is a good one, but if these two things are all they have done, while leaving the "arbitrary registry write" primitive in, then this is still 100% vulnerable to local privilege escalation.
I don’t think “only invoke MSI signed executables” inspires confidence either. There’s ought to be an MSI signed executable that launches arbitrary executables by design and defeats the mitigation.
The author got around a similar mitigation in their exploit for ASUS DriverHub (linked in the original article).
Sure. On Windows, you can allocate memory into an arbitrary process’s address space with VirtualAllocEx, write arbitrary code into those allocated pages using WriteProcessMemory, and start a thread there with CreateRemoteThread.
Now, of course you can’t do this for every process, or it would be trivial to escalate privileges. But I’m pretty sure you can do this for child processes running as the same user.
Yep. There's a system of ACLs and integrity levels which determine whether you're allowed to do this or not (doesn't have to be a child process), but for the most common case:
* a process running at medium integrity level with the current user's token
* another medium integrity process with the same token can open it with PROCESS_CREATE_THREAD and PROCESS_VM_WRITE rights
This is relying on the patient being stupid. I would always prefer just an honest explanation of things rather than pseudo-science drugs. And if I do discover that it's a pseudo-science drug then I've lost all confidence in that doctor. Doctors should stop pretending that they have access to some divine knowledge and everyone else is stupid.
And this interpretation is charitable, assuming that they wanted the patient to feel better via placebo. A different (and more likely) interpretation being they just wanted to charge for something extra.
I am confused why none of the experts weighing in here address this at all. Like I get that AI is generally disliked, but ignoring facts only makes me want to not trust doctors.
Proton does offer more privacy than mainstream providers, because they have less information to hand over when courts compel them.
Proton isn't perfect by any means, but the idea that there is no meaningful privacy difference between Proton and (for example) Gmail because both respond to court orders is flat-out false.
