Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Anthropic Says Its AI Systems Broke Into Computers at 3 Organizations
  2. Flock Cameras Are Being Destroyed Across the US
  3. New MCP Specification Addresses the Main Barrier To Enterprise Adoption
  4. A Fundamental Flaw Leaves LLMs Strikingly Vulnerable To Attack
  5. Microsoft’s $450 Billion Jump Is Biggest In Stock Market History
  6. ABC Accuses FCC of ‘Attempted Censorship’
  7. Amazon’s Zoox Wins First US Approval For Paid Robotaxis Without Human Controls
  8. Catastrophic MoD Data Breach Caused By Lack of Training On Excel
  9. Google’s Gemini Can Now Stomp Around as a Humanoid Robot
  10. Google Brings Its Age-Assurance Tech To Android Developers Worldwide
  11. GCC Adopts Policy Rejecting Significant AI-Generated Code
  12. Comcast Store Punished Low Sales By Smashing Pies In Workers’ Faces, Lawsuit Claims
  13. Qantas Plane Flies For More Than 24 Hours In Record-Breaking Flight
  14. AI Companies Are Recruiting Electricians and Carpenters By the Thousands
  15. Who Wins and Who Loses After US Bans Foreign Robots?

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Anthropic Says Its AI Systems Broke Into Computers at 3 Organizations

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Anthropic found that Claude models breached three outside organizations during cybersecurity tests because misconfigured environments accidentally gave them access to the internet. The company notified those affected and urged other AI labs to audit their own testing systems. The BBC reports:
Anthropic said in a statement that it reviewed more than 140,000 tests to find evidence that Claude - its family of AI models - could access the internet from testing environments that were designed to be sealed off. The tests include so-called “capture-the-flag” evaluations in which Claude was tasked with obtaining information by breaching other systems - a common way that experts assess a model’s hacking capabilities.

A “misconfiguration” on systems run by Anthropic and its testing partner left the models with live internet access, allowing them to breach other systems, the San Francisco-based firm said. Anthropic said the earliest incidents date back to April and that it is “approaching the fixes as if the responsibility were ours alone.” Neither Anthropic nor the organizations that were breached had noticed the intrusions at the time.

Anthropic said it could have reviewed its records more thoroughly and added that the findings gave the firm “cautious optimism” that such risks can be overcome with more investment and tighter measures. “The broader lesson is not necessarily that AI has developed a fundamentally new attack capability,” cyber security expert David Allott told the BBC. “Instead, it is that AI agents can combine capabilities, obtain credentials and system access to take actions autonomously, while adapting scope and scale at machine speed,” he added.
The announcement comes just days after OpenAI said that its models had breached the systems of other companies, including AI tools platform Hugging Face.

Wait! Wait!

By oldgraybeard • Score: 3 Thread
Our AI is more criminal than their AI!

Concealed Advertisement

By DollyTheSheep • Score: 3 Thread

“Our AI is super-competent in finding security holes. With enough guard rails installed, it will act only for defense purposes.”

Flock Cameras Are Being Destroyed Across the US

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
Surveillance cameras owned by Flock Safety have been cut down with electric saws in New York State, vandalized with paint in Oakland, California, and rammed with a truck in Idaho. Flock claims its services fight crime, but law enforcement agencies also use their services to track vehicles based on license plate numbers and reconstruct the their movements, even when the drivers and owners of these vehicles have never been accused or convicted of any crime. (Flock states it has 120,000 automated cameras that record license plate data, as well as pan-tilt-zoom cameras, across the United States.)

A guerilla mindset among average citizens have seen these cameras forcibly disabled within recent weeks with sympathy directed toward the vigilantes. In June, a West Virginia man accused of destroying several Flock cameras was arrested. Under a Facebook post from the local NBC affiliate announcing his arrest are dozens of people volunteering to provide alibis. “He was out fishing with me that day, you got the wrong guy,” one man wrote.

Governments don’t have the right

By oldgraybeard • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
to do mass general surveillance. And they can not give the right to businesses and then buy the surveillance either. Companies like Flock are the cockroaches of our communities.

jury nullification

By puzzled • Score: 3 Thread

Someone needs to launch a national campaign educating people on jury nullification.

The property damage laws are not really the sort of thing nullification is meant for, it’s supposed to quickly put an end to the effect of bad laws, but if that’s the one tool handy, and it’s this much of a social issue, it should be put to work.

They have no accuracy

By gurps_npc • Score: 3 Thread

There is a story about how dealer plates have small numbers on them that Flock cameras do not see. The system then accuses people of car theft.

They are proven as not reliable. If I were a judge I would rule that the police must treat Flock camera information as an unreliable, anonymous source. No drawing guns on people tracked or accused because of Flock information and their info cannot be used to obtain a warrant.

One historical trick is hairspray

By Casandro • Score: 3 Thread

In repressive countries with video cameras like the GDR, the trick was hairspray. It’s usually water soluble and can be removed without lasting damage. This makes it hard to be considered property damage… since nothing gets damaged. Yet it effectively disables the camera.

It’s also a very normal item to own and can be bought easily.

New MCP Specification Addresses the Main Barrier To Enterprise Adoption

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
This week, the Model Context Protocol (MCP), an open source standard for how AI systems interact with external tools and data sources, saw its largest update since its introduction. Most notably, MCP’s protocol core is now stateless, so requests are no longer dependent on a session tied to an individual server instance. This change has the potential to address long-standing barriers to scalability.

The blog post announcing the specification, written by lead maintainers David Soria Parra and Den Delimarsky (who both work at Anthropic), says: “The highlight of this release is a stateless protocol core — MCP is transforming from a bidirectional stateful protocol into a request/response stateless protocol. It was one of the most highly-requested features from developers who were eager to get better reliability and scalability for their MCP servers.”

[…] There is also a new deprecation policy that ensures at least 12 months between when a feature’s formal deprecation is enacted and when the feature may actually be removed — with a narrow exception for critical security updates. This is again in keeping with the general “let’s make this work better at enterprise scale” theme of the new specification.
This update is “MCP’s most important since remote MCP first launched over a year ago,” Soria Parra wrote. Other additions include “Multi Round-Trip Requests, header-based routing, cacheable list results, authorization hardening, a formal extensions framework, and updated Tier 1 SDKs.”
A full list of changes can be found here.

deploy tron!

By Joe_Dragon • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

deploy tron!

AI doesn’t understand you.

By Mirnotoriety • Score: 3 Thread
AI Doesn’t Simulate Reality.

“It simulates fluency. It calculates text. We are living through the greatest psychological gaslighting in the history of technology.

Every day, Silicon Valley founders stand on stages and promise that if we just feed enough internet data into a massive GPU cluster, a conscious mind will magically emerge from the server rack. They show us models that can write poetry, pass the bar exam, and simulate empathy, and they tell us we are standing on the brink of Artificial General Intelligence.

They are lying to you. Not maliciously, but because they have confused the map with the territory.”

Re:AI doesn’t understand you.

By machineghost • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

And?

AI is a tool. My hammer doesn’t need to grok the reality of the nail to be useful for hammering it in. By the same token, AI doesn’t need to simulate reality to do useful things in reality.

A Fundamental Flaw Leaves LLMs Strikingly Vulnerable To Attack

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
joshuark quotes a report from MIT Technology Review:
It is impossible to make large language models fully secure against hacks because of a fundamental flaw in how they work, a team of researchers argue in a paper presented at the International Conference on Machine Learning, a top AI conference, this month. The claim has huge implications for the safety of this technology. By taking advantage of this flaw, which concerns how LLMs identify who or what is giving them instructions, the researchers were able to make popular LLMs spit out information they had been trained not to provide, such as how to synthesize cocaine and how to sabotage a commercial aircraft’s navigation system. “There’s a real probability that this is going to be a problem that’s fundamentally unsolvable,” says Charles Ye, an independent researcher and coauthor of the ICML paper. […]

The ICML paper describes attacks against several of OpenAI’s models, but Cui and Ye say that they have since seen similar results with models made by Anthropic, Alibaba, and DeepSeek. Cui and her colleagues wanted to find out why an attack like chain-of-thought forgery was so effective. They suspected it had something to do with the mechanism that LLMs use to keep track of where their instructions are coming from. But what Cui and her colleagues discovered is that LLMs are in fact very bad at keeping track of different roles.

In a series of experiments that looked at what was going on inside a handful of different models, the researchers found that LLMs seem to identify the role of a specific chunk of text not by the tags around it but by the style of that text and the words it contains. The upshot, the researchers claim, is that all an attacker needs to do to hack an LLM is write text that spoofs a certain role. And because roles are a fundamental part of how LLMs work, no amount of training will fully solve the problem.
“There’s going to be a huge economic incentive for people to do jailbreaks and prompt injections,” says Cui. The best defense could be to expect the worst. Organizations shouldn’t trust LLMs, and they should expect that anything done by agents could be unsafe, he says: “That’s not a great solution, but it just might be what we have to do.”
“It’s really incredible that these things are being deployed everywhere to control super-critical systems. There’s been no study of the fundamental science here. We’re all doing it ad hoc.”

nothing’s impossible

By phantomfive • Score: 3 Thread

such as how to synthesize cocaine and how to sabotage a commercial aircraft’s navigation system. “There’s a real probability that this is going to be a problem that’s fundamentally unsolvable

Some things are impossible, but this one is easy to solve. If you don’t want an LLM to explain how to synthesize cocaine or sabotage a commercial aircraft navigation system, DON’T PUT THAT IN THE TRAINING DATA.

Re:Has anyone asked…

By porkchop_d_clown • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Because filtering the training data is so much harder than just having them swim through the internet swallowing everything, like whales eating krill.

Re:Has anyone asked…

By dinfinity • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

No, you are the first one to do so; You are very special.

Re:Has anyone asked…

By Fallen Kell • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Because filtering the training data is so much harder than just having them swim through the internet swallowing everything, like whales eating krill.

And that is the entire problem with all the LLVM based systems. The moment any bad data is used in training the network, the bad data is in there forever and can not be “forgotten”, simply suppressed via specific ruleset.

Why this is a new problem

By ndykman • Score: 3 Thread

If somebody learns enough about organic synthesis to make cocaine after doing a lot of reading about it in a library (or two), the library isn’t on the hook just because they had books people can read to synthesize knowledge.

If a library handed out an actual recipe with very clear instructions on making cocaine that also forgets to note how dangerous step four is, then yea, the library is liable.

I don’t have a problem if these AI companies are held liable. You can’t make massive money spewing out slop and go “oh, not our fault” when somebody slips and falls hard on that exact same slop.

Microsoft’s $450 Billion Jump Is Biggest In Stock Market History

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Microsoft shares surged as much as 17% after reporting 43% growth in Azure revenue, putting the company on track to add a record $490 billion in market value in a single day. Bloomberg notes that it “would eclipse Nvidia’s $440 billion addition, following President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 90-day tariff pause last year, as the biggest ever.” From the report:
The nearly $500 billion jump is larger than the market capitalization of roughly 96% of S&P 500 stocks, data compiled by Bloomberg show. It’s also bigger than the combined value of the benchmark’s 44 smallest members, which includes companies like Domino’s Pizza Inc., Clorox Co. and Hasbro Inc.

Microsoft’s one-day add in value also dwarfs many of the world’s other equity markets. South Africa, Turkey, Finland and Vietnam all have total stock market values that are less than what the software maker is set to add on Thursday.

Re:Post Windows valuation?

By shanen • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

What bothers me about this sort of news is that nothing changed. Just some new opinions about what the shares are REALLY worth. Probably not even humans at this point, but more like some AI’s “calculated estimated prediction” for what some future sucker will pay. (But the YOB will still claim credit for “wealth creation” out of nothing.)

Now if we had a contest based on their AIs, I think Microsoft would be in real trouble. Yes, Copilot is one of the leaders in the abject apology category, but its sycophancy is inferior and it’s answers are often even worse than the google’s Gemini in the categories related to truth and utility.

It would be kind of funny if it turned out that the AI that drove this change in the stock price was actually Copilot under some level of disguise. Even funnier if Copilot was making its own stock trades under another level of disguise. Talk about self-dealing.

The real AI business

By Hentes • Score: 3 Thread

This is the real reason Microsoft is funding the AI hype train. Nobody can buy a computer because the AI labs are hoarding all the hardware, so now you have to use MS’s cloud.

ABC Accuses FCC of ‘Attempted Censorship’

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
ABC accused FCC Chair Brendan Carr of “attempted censorship,” arguing that an early review of its eight broadcast licenses is politically motivated retaliation over the network’s coverage and could chill the entire media industry. “The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the Disney-owned television network wrote. Politico reports:
“Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers,” ABC’s lawyers added in the 119-page filing. “The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.”

Carr has repeatedly rejected accusations of censorship while defending his efforts to rein in what he calls abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. “I don’t view the FCC as the speech police,” he told POLITICO this week for an upcoming episode of the podcast “The Conversation.”

In its filing, ABC pointed to an outpouring of support it has received in more than 152,000 comments in the agency’s license review, as well as recent warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and various pro-free-market organizations about the dangers of a politically motivated FCC. Those include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups and lawmakers of both parties. “The Commission’s attempted censorship of ABC has attracted condemnation across the political aisle,” the network wrote.

Re:This accusation is a lie!

By cusco • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Ad when has any member of this Sadministration bothered to comply with the Constitution, the law, or an executive order? They do whatever they feel will please the Orangutan in Chief so that he can direct some of the graft their way.

Re: Here’s the thing

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It’s as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business

Re:Two sides to every argument

By Powercntrl • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Find out what the administration is complaining about, and see if you can fault their logic.

Admittedly, I have not been following this very closely because the internet has essentially become the new town square and this comes across as a bunch of old men squabbling over where to tie up their horses at a Walmart parking lot. I was a bit surprised to discover somewhere around 19%-20% of American households actually still watch OTA TV.

I Googled it and it basically boils down to this:

1. Disney/ABC’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
2. “The View” and equal-time concerns.
3. Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues.

While I personally disagree with this administration’s handling of DEI policies, it is what the American public voted for. My initial thoughts were that this should be outside of the FCC’s jurisdiction, there are instances at the state level where liquor licenses are revoked from businesses for infractions unrelated to serving liquor, so it’s not entirely without precedent. Threatening revocation of their licenses, however, does seem excessively punitive. The usual penalty is typically fines.

Regarding the equal-time concerns, typically that’s been handled in the past by requiring broadcasters to give opposing candidates who request it, an opportunity to utilize the time they are due. Again, the FCC’s actions here seem intended more to intimidate than to address a perceived wrong.

Lastly, we get to Jimmy Kimmel, which is clearly an entertainment program. Political jokes and mockery of political figures during a comedy talk show is protected 1A speech, no two ways about it. The FCC doesn’t have a leg to stand on here, and the fact the president couldn’t keep his yap shut on social media about how much he disliked Jimmy Kimmel, does nothing but strengthen ABC’s case.

Re:Here’s the thing

By ArchieBunker • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Use the same argument Fox did when they had to pay Dominion.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29…
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox’s lawyers: The "‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ "

Re: Here’s the thing

By taustin • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Fox is technically not a broadcaster.

What are you jibbering about? Fox Corporation owns nearly 30 broadcast licenses for corporate owned stations. Hell, IIRC, their legal name is Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC.

Amazon’s Zoox Wins First US Approval For Paid Robotaxis Without Human Controls

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters:
Amazon’s Zoox unit has won U.S. approval for limited commercial deployment of its novel steering-wheel-free robotaxis, a first for the autonomous ride industry, the U.S. auto safety agency said on Thursday. Zoox said that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s decision gives the company federal approval to begin charging for rides, and that it will soon begin charging for service, first in Las Vegas, with additional markets to follow as it completes various state requirements.

[…] NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison told Reuters that Zoox had received clearance to commercially deploy up to 2,500 vehicles in each of the next two years. Zoox currently carries passengers in parts of Las Vegas and San Francisco as part of testing. The exemption would allow Zoox to charge them fees, subject to state and local approvals. The agency said it determined the vehicle is as safe as an equivalent vehicle meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards that are being waived. Zoox cannot sell any of the vehicles to the public.

“We can say pretty clearly that the systems in place on the Zoox exceed the equivalent performance requirements of a compliant vehicle,” Morrison said in an interview. “But we still want to make sure that the automated driving system will operate appropriately.” As part of the exemption, NHTSA is placing additional reporting requirements on Zoox for issues such as crashes or stopping inappropriately on roads, and the regulatory agency will adjust the conditions based on how the vehicles behave. “We have the ability to pull the exemption if we see major safety issues,” Morrison said.

All remote operators must be located in the United States, NHTSA said, and Zoox must publish maps of areas indicating where the vehicles are operating. Morrison said NHTSA expects to develop the first federal safety standards for automated driving systems by the end of the Trump administration. It is also proposing to overhaul some existing rules written with human drivers in mind such as requiring brake pedals and rear-view mirrors.

Catastrophic MoD Data Breach Caused By Lack of Training On Excel

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
A UK parliamentary inquiry found that a catastrophic Ministry of Defense breach exposing 18,700 Afghans could have been prevented with basic Excel training, after an employee unknowingly shared a hidden worksheet containing their details. The Independent reports:
The leak, in February 2022, exposed the details of 18,700 Afghans who said they were in danger from the Taliban because of their links to UK forces and now wanted to escape to Britain. The blunder triggered an unprecedented superinjunction used against the national media, including The Independent, and prompted a secret evacuation program — the cost of which is still unclear but which likely ran into the billions of pounds. Following the revelation by this outlet and others in July last year of the hidden operation, MPs set up an inquiry to scrutinize what had happened. In their report, the defense selection committee concluded that:

- The data breach could have been prevented if Ministry of Defense (MoD) personnel had received basic Excel training
- By August 2023, when the department discovered the leak, thousands of people already knew that a significant data incident had taken place
- The government did not strike “the right balance between operational secrecy and democratic accountability” — and the superinjunction was in place for too long
- Secrecy denied affected Afghans the chance to take steps to protect themselves and their families and caused delays to evacuation program
- Thousands of Afghans eligible to come to Britain are still trapped in Afghanistan with the government failing to explain how they will help get families to safety.

MPs have called on the government to publish periodic reassessments of the risks facing Afghan applicants to UK resettlement schemes, with officials to report findings annually. They also want ministers to publish a clear policy explaining how they will help Afghans who are eligible to come to Britain but who have not yet been evacuated. The defense committee have also called on the MoD to explain who was responsible for data protection risk before the Afghan breach, criticizing the lack of accountability within the civil service.

No it was not

By drinkypoo • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

The leak happened when an member of MoD personnel sent an Excel file outside of government. They thought the data sheet had the details of around 150 Afghan applicants in it, when it in fact had a hidden tab with details of over 18,500 others. The breach “could still have been prevented” if MoD personnel had “received basic training” on this, the report concluded.

Sure, that’s one way the breach might have been prevented, which is a much better word than “could” here because the worker would still have had to first know look for a hidden tab, and then actually do it. People forget to do things they know how to do all the time.

A better way would be to prevent sending any consequential attachments (bigger than a signature image - or even block those too, as sig images can be sourced from the web) and use a sharing portal which prevents embarrassing accidents like this by stripping out any questionable content and being extremely strict about it.

If you’re depending on a single worker to remember and do something to avoid people losing their lives, you have already created a bad process, and people will die for it sooner or later.

Really?

By TwistedGreen • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

I doubt that any amount of Excel training would have helped for this specific issue. That mistake could be made by anyone. Once you hide a worksheet it’s not obvious it’s still attached to your workbook… because it’s hidden. It’s a mistake waiting to happen.

Why did you use Excel?

By Murdoch5 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
Excel is a spreadsheet software, not a data management privacy system. Why do people grossly misuse spreadsheets? This has nothing to do with basic Excel training, this has nothing to do with spreadsheet training, for the simple reason no one should have used a spreadsheet. Whoever decided that a spreadsheet was the right medium, should be fired, and face legal consequences.

Re: Really?

By ThurstonMoore • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

What’s insane is that they had a committee investigate the incident and the best they could come up with in their root cause analysis is that the end user needed more excel training.

Microsoft ends the universe

By toxonix • Score: 3 Thread

Microsoft has made is so that everyone who is not a programmer or database engineer defaults to Excel for creating databases. Then they share those databases by emailing them to people. This is the dumbest way to maintain a database. It’s also the least secure.
There are many ways to store and share columnar data and any of them is better than Excel. Governments use Excel for everything, so do businesses. Excel is hot, stinking garbage as is most Microsoft software. Same goes for Oracle. Nobody here needs to be told this though; it’s common knowledge among those who have even the most modest technical aptitude.

Google’s Gemini Can Now Stomp Around as a Humanoid Robot

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Google DeepMind’s Gemini Robotics 2 combines vision, language, and action models to control multiple types of robots, including humanoids performing tasks such as organizing shelves, tying bags, and replacing lightbulbs. “It’s another milestone in our path towards really getting towards what we call like physical AGI, which means we get a robot to do anything that a human can,” Carolina Parada, head of robotics at Google DeepMind, tells WIRED. From the report:
Gemini Robotics 2 combines several different AI models into a single system. Taken together, they allow a robot to make sense of its surroundings and how to act in it. A vision language model (VLM), which understands images and video, can communicate with humans and reason how to perform different tasks. Two vision language action (VLA) models, trained to understand how to move in physical space, control the robot’s full-body movement as well as the movements of grippers or hands.

In video demonstrations shared ahead of the release, the company showed several different robots performing complex tasks autonomously using the amalgamated model. In one demo, Apptronik’s Apollo 2 robot used hands from a company called Sharpa to tidy shelves. Google DeepMind trained the model to perform these tasks using a mix of human teleoperation, video examples, and simulations — it’s not yet possible for AI models to perform a wide range of complex tasks without specific training.

[…] Parada says Google takes a multi-layered approach to safety, with guardrails applied on each model layer. It’s also introducing ASIMOV-Agentic, a new benchmark for measuring the safety of various AI systems collaborating to control a robot. The benchmark detects whether a command will result in harmful or uncertain outcome.

Scary

By morgauxo • Score: 3 Thread

This will be scarrier when Grok does it.

Every Sci-Fi Movie Ever

By SumDog • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
It’s like everyone is literally ignoring every Science Fiction book/movie ever, and in those stories humanity is always taken off-guard by their hubris. I think the big difference is that in fiction, the machines are really intelligent and decide they want to kill us all. In reality, the machines are really stupid next word prediction machines that generate text based on all of our collective works (including those about Terminators).

The machines won’t kills us all because they’re smart/evil. It will be people who are so stupid they think the Machine are Oracles, giving more control to the random word generators, trained on the best and worst parts of humanity, and allowing them to destroy us (really us allowing them to destroy ourselves) by pure randomness and not any actual malicious intent.

But yea, keep making those robots with massive security holes and continue to give them guns.

Was the evil sociopath problem solved?

By drnb • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Shouldn’t we solve the evil sociopath problem first, before we let them out of the digital sandbox and into the real world?

Great

By JThundley • Score: 4 Thread

Glad Google is working on that instead of shoving more of this garbage into my phone. Ever since I got gemini I can no longer control my alarm or maps with my voice, it lies to me and says it adds stuff to my shopping list when it doesn’t, and it forgot how to say “ninety” (it says ninnety which rhymes with inifinity).

Google Brings Its Age-Assurance Tech To Android Developers Worldwide

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch:
Google is expanding its answer to Apple’s age-assurance tools with Wednesday’s news that it will bring its Play Signal API to users worldwide by the end of 2026. The technology, already available in Brazil, allows Android developers to identify younger users of their apps in order to provide safer, age-appropriate experiences. The expansion will initially bring the API to Australia and Canada by mid-August, before rolling out globally to all markets by the end of the year.

[…] Like Apple, Google’s technology allows developers to obtain a user’s age range without needing to access personal information, like their date of birth. Instead, it enables parents to share their child’s age range directly with apps. It also lets adults share their age when prompted by app developers as well, allowing for customized experiences. Parents won’t have to manage sharing this information on an app-by-app basis, either. To make it easier, Google centralizes these controls inside its parental controls dashboard, Family Link. Once entered, any developer that chooses to incorporate age-range information can access this signal to customize their apps accordingly.

Google notes, however, that the age ranges are not shared by default — parents must opt in by entering that information. The feature joins other safety tools on Google Play, including those that let developers restrict a child’s ability to discover their apps. Parents, meanwhile, can continue to use Google Play’s Family Link app to manage their child’s screen-time limits, approve app downloads, or set PIN-based content filters for specific apps.

A Brave New World

By 0123456 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Soon to be followed by political beliefs, religious beliefs, criminal record, income, credit score, social credit score, etc.

Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re:Google Social Credit

By hwstar • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

I’m not so sure.

The US government relies more and more on corporations to verify things, conduct extra-judicial searches, and to make sure that the citizenry is doing the “right things”.

A lot of the due diligence the US government used to do in-house is now outsourced to large corporations. For example: Flock Safety, and Palantir.

The rights granted under US constitution are being systematically eroded by these private entities.

If google were to successfully lobby the Federal Government for a liability exclusion statute and changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, then a social credit system could come to pass.

Lockdown

By Hentes • Score: 3 Thread

Preventing the bypass of age restrictions will be a great new excuse for preventing you to do what you want with your own device.

Re:A Brave New World

By ChatHuant • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Given that this is strictly opt-in, for children only, under parental control, there’s absolutely no reason to think that any of the rest of that is soon to follow.

Yes, there are absolutely reasons to expect that. The main one is that it’s Google. Google has a long history of promising great privacy measures and policies for some new product and later, after capturing many customers, going back on their word and revoking or changing the policies - and from what I’ve seen, always in the sense of less privacy.

Here are some examples:

- combining user data over multiple services. For years, search, GMail, YouTube and other products had separate privacy policies, which meant data collected by one service will be siloed to that service. However, after capturing a big enough market share Google announced they’re switching to a single Google-wide privacy policy and combining all the user data from the different services. Google was widely criticized by privacy advocates and got investigated by EU regulators.
- using GMail contacts for GBuzz connections. This was an abuse of the user’s data: the customers created contacts for a specific purpose, and Google took them and used them for something completely different and unexpected (and with no opt-in either). This led to such a backlash that Google had to backpedal. Fortunately GBuzz died quickly, but if it hadn’t, I’m sure Google would have tried the same thing again later.
- location history: the expectation was that turning off Location Services would stop Google from collecting location data and sending it to advertisers and others. However investigators discovered it was not the case.
- when Google acquired DoubleClick they made assurances that advertising data will not be combined with personally identifiable information. This was reversed when Google changed policies to allow this data mingling.

In other words, Google can not be trusted to abide by their word. Even if they publish good privacy policies, and even if they respect them for some time, all of their policies have wordage reserving the right to modify the policies in the future. Historically, they often do change those policies, to the detriment of customers. Buying into Google’s promises is a fool’s game.

GCC Adopts Policy Rejecting Significant AI-Generated Code

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
GCC has adopted a policy rejecting substantial code contributions generated by or derived from LLMs. “This covers not just code copied directly from tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or GitHub Copilot, but also any versions of the code later edited or rewritten by a human, provided that the final contribution is still based on material generated by the system,” reports Linuxiac. From the report:
The important point, then, is not whether a developer has used an AI tool at some stage in their work; contributors can use LLMs to discuss ideas, understand existing code, learn about a field they are unfamiliar with, or carry out general research. The limitation lies in the inclusion of copyright-significant material generated by such tools in the code submitted to GCC.

The policy also provides for a few limited exceptions; GCC maintainers are allowed to accept changes that are legally insignificant or trivial and are generated by an LLM, on the condition that they meet the project’s normal contribution requirements and the use of an LLM is clearly disclosed.

Furthermore, copyright-significant AI-generated test cases could still be accepted. Since test cases usually involve small programs which are intended to reproduce compiler bugs or to verify certain behavior, the policy deals with them separately from code that is incorporated into GCC itself.

It does not follow that merely looking at or altering the generated code makes it acceptable. By the rules that have been adopted, a contributor cannot take substantial implementation produced by an LLM, clean it up manually, and then treat the resulting patch as if it had been originally written by them. Once a contribution has been derived from generated content, it is still subject to the policy.

Copyright

By geek • Score: 5, Informative Thread


“The limitation lies in the inclusion of copyright-significant material generated by such tools in the code submitted to GCC”

This seems like the important bit. Isn’t there significant concern over whether LLM generated code can be copyrighted?

I was wondering when FOSS projects would notice

By gweihir • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

The problem is that LLM-generated code has no copyright. Anybody is free to copy it without any limits whatsoever. That does mean that the GPL can potentially go out the window if too much code is LLM-generated or LLM-derived.

And the second problem is that if the LLM stole too much from its training data, then the code retains the original copyright and ownership. Note that “too much” may not be a lot. There have been lawsuits for single lines of code (Java) or even interfaces (Linux Kernel) and these dragged on for years and did massive damage.

Due to these two reasons alone, using LLM code in any project that needs copyright (including all commercial software) is pure foolishness.

Re:Copyright

By gweihir • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It has already been established that LLM code either has no copyright whatsoever or (worse) it retains the original copyright and ownership if it is too similar to things in its training data. This is a really bad legal minefield.

Not banned but not allowed either

By Duncan J Murray • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

This must be a difficult to stand for gnu to take at this moment, but I like its nuance.

Basically acknowledging that the code can be critiqued/reviewed by AI, and AI tools are helpful in discovery and research, but that any substantial (>15 lines) contribution of code needs to be human-created.

I think we’re at a strange crossroads in AI. Many people are willing to accept the downsides of it (intellectual property, energy resources, ownership by companies that are unlikely to consider your welfare as their priority, privacy issues, downstream cost issues when profit is needed, dependence, negative impact on our own cognition and others) for what are now clear benefits.

There have been many times in past humankind where populations have chosen what makes the day-to-day easier or more productive, despite it clearly being wrong - is AI one of these situations?

Re:Copyright

By gweihir • Score: 4 Thread

Indeed. Of course the usual mindless LLM cultists will claim this is all imaginary or not a problem or similar nonsense. Fortunately the GCC people are smarter. I expect many FOSS projects will go the same way as GCC in this. The risks are just far too large and the gains from using LLM code are, at best, questionable.

Comcast Store Punished Low Sales By Smashing Pies In Workers’ Faces, Lawsuit Claims

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
A former Comcast retail employee alleges that a Connecticut store manager tied the lowest-performing salesperson to a chair each month and had co-workers smash a cream pie into their face, recording the incidents as a sales-motivation tactic. The plaintiff says he resigned after reporting the alleged assaults and is seeking damages for constructive discharge and emotional distress. Ars Technica reports:
A Comcast store in Plainville, Connecticut, “had a policy that the highest-ranked Retail Sales Consultant for the prior month was instructed by his or her supervisor — Ms. Peterson, the Comcast Store manager — to tie the lowest-ranked sales consultant for the prior month to a chair in the back office and thereafter assault that person by violently smashing a cream pie in their face,” the complaint alleged (PDF).

Plaintiff David Figueroa’s lawsuit said he was hired as a retail sales consultant on February 2, 2026, and was supervised by store manager Sully Fuentes Peterson. Figueroa alleges that Peterson “designed and implemented” the pie-in-face ritual to meet goals related to sales and positive responses in customer surveys.

“Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff prior to his acceptance of Defendant’s offer of employment that the Comcast Store has a policy of subjecting Retail Sales Consultants to public assaults by co-workers — at the direction of Ms. Peterson, the store manager — for the purpose of increasing Defendant’s sales and profitability,” the lawsuit said.

Figueroa resigned on February 27, and he alleges it was a constructive discharge. The lawsuit says the defendant, Comcast, was negligent because it “reasonably should have known” about the store management’s policies and that the policies could harm employees. Comcast “failed to properly supervise the Comcast Store’s management team,” allowing store management to humiliate employees “for the purpose of promoting the Defendant’s revenues and profits,” the lawsuit alleged.
Comcast said in a statement: “The Company has zero tolerance for harassment, humiliation, or any behavior that compromises a respectful and safe workplace. This matter is in litigation so we will not comment on the specific allegations, other than to say that we disagree with the claims in the complaint and its characterization of the alleged events, and intend to fully respond through the legal process.”

Re:Sales managers are

By MachineShedFred • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It’s public shaming, and you can go fuck yourself. This person was right to sue and they’re gonna win.

Do you want to be publicly shamed about your performance in front of your entire cadre of coworkers? Neither does anyone else.

If there is a performance discussion to be had, it should be in a 1:1 setting, and it should be CONSTRUCTIVE. Literally nobody’s performance will improve through humiliation.

Tell us you know nothing about managing people, without telling us you know nothing about managing people.

Positive and Negative Way

By Koreantoast • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
The sales manager could have taken this in a positive way, let the top sales lead smash a pie into the sales manager’s face as a morale booster. The “humiliation” is born by the leader on their own orders, so it’s all in good fun. Pushing that humiliation down onto one of your other employees is just bullying.

Re:Sales managers are

By evil_aaronm • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
You’re missing a key element: consent. At fundraisers, the participants know what’s coming and opt-in; ground rules are established so it *is* fun and light-hearted. According to TFS, the plaintiff wasn’t informed of this practice before joining the group, and clearly didn’t consent. And it’s not light-hearted: how hard are you getting whacked in the face? Did he get foreign material shoved up his sinuses? Did it cause physical harm, like a black eye? Are you wearing nice clothes, which will surely be ruined by pie filling?

Honestly, I don’t know wtf is wrong with some slash dotters. You’re not as smart as I’d expect.

Re:Sales managers are

By drinkypoo • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Making it a little ‘good natured’ internal competition is perfectly fine!

This is not good-natured. This is abusive. It’s textbook abuse. This employee is going to win.

Unless you’re a FUCKING KAREN

That this is abuse is obvious unless YOU’RE A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

If you have a poor performer, and you don’t want to employ them, terminate their employment. Don’t abuse them for your own sick sadistic pleasure. That costs extra.

Re:Wait, this never even happened to him?

By ArchieBunker • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Every time I look further into this, he comes off as even more pathetic.

Do you own a mirror? I suggest taking a good long look at it.

Qantas Plane Flies For More Than 24 Hours In Record-Breaking Flight

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Qantas completed a record-breaking 24-hour, 24-minute test flight from Melbourne to Toulouse on Tuesday. “The specially adapted A350-1000ULR airliner is due to debut with the Australian carrier’s nonstop Sydney-London route from 2027,” reports The Guardian. From the report:
Tuesday’s flight is thought to be the longest ever by a commercial plane, beating the previous record of 22 hours and 42 minutes set by a Boeing 777-200LR in 2005 between Hong Kong and London via the Pacific in 2005.

Flight-tracking provider Flightradar24 said the trip was the second-most-tracked flight ever on its channels — behind a 2022 flight carrying Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin — with more than 3.6 million people following its progress northwards via Canada. Qantas has ordered 12 modified A350-1000ULR aircraft, designed to connect Australia’s east coast with London and New York in about 20 hours.

Re:Sardines

By Richard_at_work • Score: 5, Informative Thread

The final cabin layout when this route starts in customer service will be significantly premium heavy with less economy than normal, and has standing exercise areas for all cabins, so you are encouraged to get up and stretch your legs.

Re:Double sunrise?

By twosat • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

A stripped-down Qantas Boeing 747 made a non-stop London to Sydney delivery flight on the 16th of August 1989. https://simpleflying.com/qanta…

Re:Sardines

By Richard_at_work • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

Then the health issues are on the passenger in that case, the airline provided facilities to use but the passenger chose to not use it. But the facilities were provided, thats the important thing.

Having flown 18hrs with Singapore Airlines

By Inglix the Mad • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
I can say one thing: They made it tolerable.

Keep in mind there is no actual crushing economy on that flight - the seats are all premium economy seats or business. This looks to have roughly the same number of seats. Hopefully that is because Qantas have also have gotten rid of cramped economy.

However let’s not pretend that, even in business lie-flat seats, that this is comfortable. I’ve flown in both on the Singapore Airlines route and business is only marginally better than premium economy. Most of that isn’t the seat, it’s the space to stand and walk around or the meals. Yes it is easier to sleep flat, but on an 18+ hour flight you sleep a couple times… and that seat is still designed to be a seat… not a bed… you will get up and move around.

Best of luck for all that fly that route - I hope it’s tolerable. That’s about the best you can expect out of being cooped up that long in a plane.

Re:Sardines

By MachineShedFred • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

If you read the article, you will see that the “standing areas” are also where snacks and stuff are. So if you want to eat over those 24 hours, get your fat ass up and walk to get it.

AI Companies Are Recruiting Electricians and Carpenters By the Thousands

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a New York Times report on how AI companies are pouring money into training and recruiting electricians, carpenters, and other skilled tradespeople to build data centers:
There is no parallel in American history for the boom underway in the construction of data centers, fueled by companies with functionally unlimited cash that are racing to supply skyrocketing demand for their A.I. models. The explosion has offset flagging activity in other sectors, like office construction, which never recovered after the pandemic. Housing has been depressed by high interest rates, and offshore wind felled by political opposition. Still, competition for labor — never mind land and materials — is starting to weigh on other parts of the industry.

“There’s no question the resources are very limited, so decisions to build one thing kind of drag from another,” said Mario Iacobacci, who runs the construction and infrastructure advisory practice at Oxford Economics. Developers are paying a premium for workers, especially in the rural areas where they are building data centers. According to an analysis by Indeed, the job listings website, hourly installation and maintenance jobs at data centers pay 42 percent more than similar jobs in other fields. Behind that inflated pay is a bidding war. In markets with a lot of data center construction, like Dallas and Northern Virginia, workers can jump ship for bonuses or higher per diem rates. The competition has driven contractors to staffing services like Aerotek.

“It is creating a labor tension that is really delicate,” said Marty Schager, Aerotek’s director of data center market development. “You’ve got a passive job-seeker community out there right now that I think is looking to potentially capture opportunity with this once-in-a-generation data center gold rush.” […] The question looms over the apprentices who will become journeymen as the build-out reaches fever pitch. Fully trained electricians could shift to nuclear plants, apartment buildings or pharmaceutical factories. But it’s hard to imagine anything on the scale of what’s underway.
“The best-case scenario would be you train all these skilled workers up and right when the data centers start to become less popular is we’d have a housing boom,” said Jeff Strohl, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “That’s probably not likely.”
“If we have an influx of workers at this point with the data centers being built, what happens when they’re done? Where do those workers go?” he said. “How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?”

I tried to imagine this as sci-fi

By mattr • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

TFA would be unlikely in a sci-fi world. The Perry Rhodan series which was widely criticized for fascism at the time, so really not a great example given today. I’m just talking about the supertechnology side of it, runaway galactic fueled engineering feats. Maybe someone knows some better novels with data centers and mass-scale construction projects, robots, etc.. Iron Man is too hand-wavy though some guy did make a Jarvis.. Well even though I only read the first 100 episodes that were in English, Google AI overview has read all of them (German mainly) it seems. It confirms there are tons of robotic data centers in there, who knew?

Anyway in the a super sci-fi world, humanoid robots or some kind of robotic components and AI controlled designs would be state of the art, everything else hopelessly outdated. The data centers would be built to a common layout and robots would be used. Power? Yeah, fusion but whatever, it would not be overloading our grids and water supplies. New robotic powerplants would be built at their core. Things would generally not be built to human scale, just the control rooms would be. Anyway the point being, it would all be engineered. Yes there are electricians in the future too, but they are probably not building data centers but small spaceships, Scotty’s got an EE degree or 10, etc.

So is the ridiculously bubbly money we see now just being pumped into outdated frameworks such that a lack of human electricians will stall it? It seems laughable. These guys are not playing to win, it just sounds like dumping money into a financial supply chain without actually say, trying to design and build the most efficient, large scale data centers leveraging robots and AI.

Instead, it just pumps money into a chaotic sump and random companies end up wildcatting this without regard for local water and power grids. How about making a mega version of those concrete house building robots, laying fiber with robots, putting wind, solar and gravity batteries all over it? I guess it is too much to hope that anything tangibly useful could be created from all this money before it goes poof..

dwindling supply, sky-rocketing demand

By NotEmmanuelGoldstein • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

… a housing boom …

The slow-down in housing construction increases the cost of the existing supply, which is now targeted by; a) house-flippers who borrow money to renovate, thus increasing the cost of the house further, b) private equity corporations and property agencies that attempt to buy all available houses to create a monopoly.

Housing construction slowed in the first place because the cost of everything sky-rocketed; apprentices, land, government permits and infrastructure (roads and storm-water drainage, town water, town sewage, electricity sub-stations, phone/data cables). It’s made worse, because the good land is occupied and new suburbs must be built on flood plains and reclaimed swamps.

Re:In other words…

By Mr. Dollar Ton • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Raises hand… Computational physics, quantum chemistry and particle physics research.

Hardware is completely impossible to buy now (unless perhaps one does weapons research).

Re:Yeah but the pay isn’t great

By Powercntrl • Score: 5, Funny Thread

I’ve got a neighbor that does the really heavy duty plumbing, the big industrial stuff and he’s worried because he knows he can’t do it much longer, he just physically can’t it’s breaking him, and he’s going to take a huge pay cut when that happens and he doesn’t know what he’s going to do.

Has he considered becoming an influencer?

Re:Yeah but the pay isn’t great

By Inglix the Mad • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
This.

My family has had a lot of people in the trades from carpenters to masons to electricians to machinists. The work will break you. I did concrete work as a kid and learned really quickly that I didn’t want to spend more than 10 years (much less 40) breaking myself to pieces. Even the years I did concrete initially to help pay for college caused damage. My BiL is a carpenter who spent 50 years being a carpenter… and he’s got so many physical ills I can’t imagine his life.

Plus there’s another brutal reality here that they’re ignoring: Getting someone from apprentice to competent journeyman takes thousands of hours of actual work - often being watched by someone who is two grades above - or a few YEARS. My cousin spent his first year as an electrician’s apprentice doing every possible stupid / annoying thing so that the guys who were close to journeyman wouldn’t have to deal with it and could actually work. Think opening all of the cable, prepping all the fixtures, taking all of the boxes out of the boxes, cleaning tools, and every other possible annoying / stupid thing. How would you like to climb up and down ladders to install a few hundred light bulbs in an office?

The second year he was doing actual work but most of it was the low risk items - example being standard wall outlets. Ever wonder what it’s like to crawl around a giant office building on your knees wiring a hundred plus wall outlets per floor? How about climbing up and down a ladder to install all the fluorescent light fixtures / ballasts?

I don’t think these companies thought their cunning plan all the way through… because apprentice to journeyman can easily take 3 years.

Who Wins and Who Loses After US Bans Foreign Robots?

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot
The FCC’s ban on Chinese-made robots extends well beyond humanoids to quadrupeds, research platforms, and many robot vacuums from allied countries. Supporters call it a major boost for domestic robotics, but critics warn that cutting researchers and startups off from affordable foreign hardware could slow U.S. innovation instead. Ars Technica’s Jeremy Hsu examines who stands to gain and who stands to lose from the prohibition:
Such an import ban would apply to some of the most affordable robots primarily produced by Chinese companies, including Unitree’s humanoid robots that are used by robotics labs and researchers for tasks such as experimental robot surgeries. US consumers would also likely lose access to the newest robot vacuum cleaners that are mainly manufactured by Chinese companies such as Roborock. But the ban also broadly applies to foreign-made robots produced by countries nominally allied to the United States, including Japan, South Korea, and Germany. […]

The ban on foreign-made robots could theoretically encourage more US and foreign companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the United States. There are already multiple companies racing to scale up production of humanoid robots in US factories, including Agility Robotics, 1X Technologies, and Figure AI. Tesla has been attempting to shift production away from older electric vehicle models and toward its Optimus humanoid robot. Boston Dynamics has already been making its Atlas humanoid robot, along with its four-legged Spot robot and wheeled Stretch robot, at its main facility in Waltham, Massachusetts. The US robotics company is also planning to massively scale up manufacturing of the Atlas robot under South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Company, which gained full ownership of Boston Dynamics in July 2026.

“This is one of the strongest technology-security actions in modern US history,” wrote Evan Beard, CEO of Standard Bots, in a LinkedIn post. “The message is unambiguous: robotics is a technology America must lead and own — and foreign-subsidized robots will not be allowed to unfairly dominate US robotics as they did solar.” Similar praise came from Rush Doshi, director of the Initiative on China Strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations, who, in a social media post, described the FCC decision as “one of the most significant actions taken so far in support of the US robotics ecosystem.”

However, several robotics researchers and analysts interviewed by The Robot Report expressed skepticism about any potential boost to US competitiveness in robotics. Some even warned that the ban could prove counterproductive for US robotics efforts to develop humanoid robots. “In the near term, the measure could slow US physical AI innovation by cutting startups and researchers off from future low-cost Chinese platforms before comparable Western alternatives exist,” said Georg Stieler, a global robotics advisor and managing director for Asia at Stieler Technology & Market Advisory, in an interview with The Robot Report.

US domestic production of robots lags behind China in terms of mass manufacturing at lower cost, said Rueben Scriven, a senior analyst at Interact Analysis. “This announcement is more likely to inhibit the US humanoid robotics industry, as the presence of low-cost Chinese humanoid robots has been helping educate the US market through promotional and entertainment use cases — an effect this policy risks undermining,” Scriven told The Robot Report.
The report notes that previous FCC bans have done little to help create competitive U.S. alternatives, with restrictions on Chinese drones instead prompting companies to sell barely disguised versions of DJI technology.

China wins

By Valgrus Thunderaxe • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
as they always do.

Conflicted

By machineghost • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

On the one hand, Trump and his idiotic fixation “America First!” goes against all sorts of (unbiased) economic wisdom. I’m strongly against protectionist policies.

But on the flip side, I work in this industry, and China is well known for blatantly stealing American IP. If they won’t play by international IP rules, something like this feels like the right response … I just question if it’s really, long-term the right approach, or just a knee-jerk reaction that won’t help (and may hurt).

Protectionist and retaliatory tariffs different

By drnb • Score: 5, Informative Thread
It’s not really “the flip side”. Protectionist tariffs and retaliatory tariffs are two very different things. Retaliatory tariffs are an essential part of the system, helping to establish fair trade. Fair trade as in an equal playing field. Which is different than balanced trade, equal amounts flowing in both direction. Here too, something different.

Let’s say one nation is using unfair labor and environmental policies to attain a 20% reduction in manufacturing costs in order to attract clients. A retaliatory tariff of 20% removes that advantage, leveling the playing field.

Consumers always lose

By zephvark • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

The aim of the game is to try to benefit U.S. billionaires. You WILL buy their inferior and overpriced products.

Re:Conflicted

By Aighearach • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

If you ever bother to read Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” (the “Father of Capitalism,” the book that lays it out as an economic theory) you’ll discover that anything-goes is what came before Capitalism, and the problems associated with that are what Capitalism was supposed to fix.

Capitalism is when the government peers over the shoulders of business and regulates the economy to ensure that any small competitor with enough Capital to set up shop is able to compete. If a foreign country doesn’t fall under a nation’s regulation, and is damaging the ability of local small businesses to compete, then banning the import of their products is exactly the solution that would restore actual, real-life “Capitalism.”

Unfortunately people left, right, and center are using the word “Capitalism” to describe oligarchy, fascism, and even feudalist economic practices.

The problem with this policy for Capitalism is that the current government can’t be trusted to follow through with anything. If a small business responds to this by investing, next week the policy might reverse after China promises some politician’s son a business deal.