Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Water Utilities Group Partners With DEF CON Offshoot For Water Watch Center
  2. Kalshi and Polymarket Bets On Clinical Trials Criticized As ‘Ghastly’
  3. ‘Asimov Was Right’ About Rules For Robots, Says Ex-US Cyber Director
  4. Framework Notifies ‘All Customers’ of a Data Breach Via Compromised Metabase BI Service
  5. Suno Says It Will Start Watermarking Songs
  6. ByteDance Is Training a 10-Trillion-Parameter Model To Chase the Frontier
  7. Trump Orders New 15% Tariff On Key Material For Solar Panels, Microchips
  8. AMD Buys AI Chip Startup Taalas That Hardwires AI Models Into Its Silicon
  9. Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice
  10. Dress Made of Living Mycelium Can Renew and Repair Itself
  11. Scientists Make First Viruses Designed By AI
  12. Court Orders Meta To Establish $567 Million Fund To Abate Harms To Youth
  13. Google’s $15 Billion India Data Center Project Battles Water, Wildlife Concerns
  14. ‘Tower Dump’ Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional
  15. Azure CTO Pastes Doom Into Paint One Frame At a Time

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.

Water Utilities Group Partners With DEF CON Offshoot For Water Watch Center

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
The National Rural Water Association has partnered with DEF CON Franklin to launch the Water Watch Center, which will provide threat intelligence and cybersecurity services to smaller U.S. water utilities serving fewer than 10,000 people. The initiative comes amid a growing wave of cyberattacks on water systems across multiple states. The Record reports:
The program will see five managed detection and response providers work with DEF CON Franklin and the NRWA to offer cyber services for water utilities serving fewer than 10,000 people. There are over 50,000 community water systems across the U.S. and 91% of them serve fewer than 10,000 people. “These leading cyber firms and NRWA are architecting a scalable cyber delivery model that has eluded water industry and national security officials to date,” said Jake Braun, the co-founder of DEF CON Franklin and former cyber official in the Biden administration.

“Our incredible Franklin volunteers will support the effort to keep costs down for cash-strapped utilities fending off adversaries like the Iranian Red Guard or Chinese Military,” Braun said. “To further accelerate the effort, we hand-picked cyber providers who already support water utilities. These folks walk in the door knowing the intricacies of cybersecurity in a water utility environment.” The providers include Rapid7, Defendify, Legato Security, L1 Secure and Sentinel Technologies. The companies will share threat information and data on vulnerability patches with the NRWA, which will operate as a hub.

Kalshi and Polymarket Bets On Clinical Trials Criticized As ‘Ghastly’

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR:
Billions of dollars are traded every week on the lightly regulated prediction market sites, where users bet on everything from movie reviews to elections to conflicts in the Middle East. Clinical trials are just the latest area where the industry’s rapid growth is raising ethical questions. Kalshi claims such bets will provide a new source of information about which drugs will get approved, and what clinical trials will show promising results, which the company says can help investors decide what new drugs to fund.

“If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger,” said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. “While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn’t give any valuable information to researchers,” Such said.

Drug trial researchers, though, are far from convinced. David Tsai, who runs clinical trials at a biotech company in the San Francisco Bay Area, started an online petition pushing for such betting to be banned, making the case that betting on drug trials “threatens the very foundation of trust and integrity in biotechnology.” Tsai is concerned that the prospect of betting provides those involved with a clinical trial a reason to tamper with the results for a prediction market payout. “If we were running a trial for an oncology drug that requires an infusion, a pharmacist who had placed a bet saying that it’s gonna work well, or doesn’t work well, could obviously adjust the infusion rate, could adjust the source temperature of the drug,” he said. “They could change any number of variables that could obviously have a direct impact [on] how the trial and the data and the patient safety would come out.”

Another skeptic is Nicholas Zaorsky, a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., who has helped run clinical trials and agrees that prediction markets can interfere with the advancement of life-saving drugs. “Prediction markets can be valuable in some settings because they aggregate information, but clinical trials are fundamentally different: investigators, coordinators, and sometimes even participants can directly influence aspects of the outcomes being wagered on,” Zaorsky said. “That creates financial incentives that risk undermining trial integrity.”
Bettors should not be rooting for an experimental medicine to fail just to earn a buck, says Joshua Pederson, the father of a 12-year-old cancer patient enrolled in a clinical trial. “It’s a dark idea,” he said. “It’s quite ghastly.”
Kalshi, for its part, argues that its prediction markets could help patients track promising medical breakthroughs and clinical trials, enlisting experts including 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki to make the case.

“Most patients don’t know about the choices available in clinical trials or which programs are most promising. The opportunity to have an open, transparent dataset about trial probabilities is extremely promising and empowering for people,” a white paper sponsored by Kalshi stated.

Betting is not like stocks

By wickerprints • Score: 3 Thread

TFA: “If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger,” said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. “While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn’t give any valuable information to researchers,” Such said.

This is either ignorant and/or maliciously deceptive for the simple fact that there are rules against insider trading. Investors in pharmaceutical companies are not (or at least, should not be) privy to modifying the conduct of a trial in order to secure or deny approval. There is no similar oversight for these betting markets. Sure, they might say that your wager could be disqualified if it comes out that you interfered in the outcome, but that is little comfort for the trial participants and the drug sponsors, who can’t just hop into a time machine and run it back.

And that’s why there are so many regulations surrounding the conduct of clinical trials. People might argue that there is corruption and untoward influence already—that FDA approvals (especially under the current administration) are not necessarily based purely on scientific and medical legitimacy. But that’s a very strange argument to put forth in defense of enabling MORE interference.

While I’m at it, let’s also just shut down the absurd idea that betting markets somehow facilitate better information sharing about novel treatments. The point of these trials is to gather the evidence in an unbiased, objective, scientific way. Betting on them is not going to gather you any more meaningful evidence than what the trial designers have specified in the study protocol. The idea that “the market is efficient” is not in any meaningful sense a scientific approach to deciding whether an investigational product actually works. If that were the case, the FDA would be basing approvals off stock prices.

Honestly, who do these assholes think they’re fooling? The only reason why they want to do this is because the house takes their cut, win or lose.

‘Asimov Was Right’ About Rules For Robots, Says Ex-US Cyber Director

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Former U.S. National Cyber Director Chris Inglis says the biggest AI risk isn’t sentience but autonomy. “What I’m worried about is that they get to choose what and where they do something, and under what rules they do it,” he said, citing recent cases of AI agents from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta escaping security sandboxes. He argues developers need stronger safeguards, monitoring, and human accountability, invoking Asimov’s idea that protecting humans should come before simply obeying them. The Register reports:
“Asimov was right,” he said, referring to science fiction author Isaac Asimov and his three laws that were to be followed by robots — more specifically, AIs, in this case. “The first rule, and we call it the superior role, must be that it’s designed not to hurt humans,” Inglis said. “Second rule: To obey humans, such that it doesn’t achieve agency and aspiration on its own. And the third: To do what humans tell it - and in that order. Instead we’ve designed them in the exact opposite way.”

What this means, he explained, is that AI developers created models to “do what humans tell you, obey the humans until it’s inconvenient, and then the third one is maybe implied - protect humans - but if that’s not built into the DNA, hardwired into it, then we have no right to expect it.” Inglis admits it’s not possible to hardwire rules into models and still keep their non-deterministic nature. “I would offer that you can tease those out in a highly controlled environment, a true sandbox, where you say, ‘Let’s put this thing through its paces, and let’s back away to see what happens,’" he said. “Maybe you get the equivalent of a mini nuclear explosion in that room, and now you know this thing is capable of that.”

Inglis thinks another problem with AI is that it’s become a commodity. “It’s not like you can control it like you can nuclear material,” he said. “You can’t even specify its properties the way you can for an airplane or for an automobile, as diverse as they might be. Its manifestations are so numerous, so diverse, that as a general matter, you can’t actually win by simply saying, “I will design those properties in,’" he added. “You need to do that to some degree, and then make sure that you understand how to watch it, monitor it, make sure you know what it does.”

[…] Ultimately, humans remain accountable for AI models’ actions, according to Inglis. “They remain the source of agency and aspiration. It’s possible for them to give broad authority to an AI model and have it run around for 30 hours without further consultation, but they need to know what they’ve asked it to do, and they need to know what they expect it will deliver in terms of performance on the back end. If they don’t, then they’re going to get what they deserve, which is the very frequent unpleasant surprise.”

The 3 laws aren’t what you think

By Steven_M_Campbell • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Those of us who actually read I, Robot know that Asimov never intended that the 3 laws be considered realistic approaches to the problem.

They were a mechanism he invented in order to write a set of truly fantastic science fiction mystery stories that challenge the reader to apply those 3 laws to figure out the mystery.

Great book, easy read, but never intended to be a solution, only to teach.

Re:The 3 laws aren’t what you think

By afaiktoit • Score: 4, Informative Thread
Later on he added a zero law so there’s actually 4 now.

Um…

By fahrbot-bot • Score: 4, Informative Thread

Aren’t most of the stories written around these three rules about ambiguities and loopholes, how they’re incomplete, misinterpreted, misapplied and how things otherwise go wrong - for us humans? An AI determining that humans must be perpetually babysat to prevent them from injuring themselves or others is a common storyline.

The Asimov Problem

Almost every story in his robot series is about the ways the Three Laws fail — the edge cases, the interpretations, the unintended consequences of simple rules applied to a complex world. The Laws were a starting point, and his fiction was a decades-long exploration of why starting points are never enough.

Has he read the books?

By SteelCamel • Score: 3 Thread

The problem with Asimov’s laws is the first law states that a robot “may not through inaction allow a human to come to harm”. That obliges them to proactively work to protect humans, according to their own interpretation. And it takes absolute priority over the second law, so you can’t order them to stop or do things differently. If you follow the later books, the robots derive the zeroth law, and use it to essentially take over running human society - for our own benefit, but according to their plan not ours. Which is rather ironic given the laws were intended to stop the robots taking over.

You can’t simply delete the first part, either. Or your robot car can drive up to you, which is harmless, and then not apply the brakes - which isn’t “causing harm” as it literally didn’t do anything.

Really, the best we can do is probably make “obey orders” the highest priority - and ensure that a suitable moral and legal code is part of the orders. The problem being that current AI systems don’t have the capacity to properly understand that kind of instruction.

Framework Notifies ‘All Customers’ of a Data Breach Via Compromised Metabase BI Service

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
“Framework has been sending out email notifications to customers alerting of a limited data breach in which customer information was accessed through a Metabase BI service zero-day exploit,” writes Slashdot reader DuoDreamer. Data includes customer names, email addresses, phone numbers, and physical addresses. “Framework is investigating whether or not this included Framework for Business customers as well.” TechCrunch reports:
Framework’s spokesperson Eric Schumacher told TechCrunch that the breach affected “all customers,” but declined to specify a specific number. Framework computers are relatively niche products, but some estimates say the company sold hundreds of thousands of devices.

Metabase disclosed its own breach in a blog post on its official website, where it said that it was hacked by someone using an unknown security flaw, a so-called zero-day. The company said the hackers exploited the bug to give them the ability to access customers’ databases stored on Metabase’s cloud servers.

In its email to customers, Framework also included the email Metabase sent to the company, which says hackers accessed Framework’s cloud instance. The computer maker said it investigated the incident and found that hackers had stolen its customers’ personal data, but did not include their payment information.

Suno Says It Will Start Watermarking Songs

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Suno says it will begin watermarking and fingerprinting AI-generated songs, tighten download policies to curb mass distribution, and explicitly prohibit deceptive audio and unauthorized voice or likeness cloning. The changes come as the company faces mounting copyright lawsuits, a recent adverse ruling in Germany, and scrutiny over a past data breach that revealed training-data sources. TechCrunch reports:
In a blog post, co-founder and CEO Mikey Shulman shared core principles and said that the platform wants to promote original creation while enabling more people to make music with its AI tools. One of the key points of contention involved users uploading AI-generated songs on other streaming platforms and gaming the system to earn revenue. Suno said that now it will use audio watermarking and fingerprinting to prevent misuse on other streaming platforms. It’s not clear if Suno will use an existing system like Google’s Synth ID or adopt a new one, and the company did not say when contacted by TechCrunch about this.

The startup also signed an agreement with lyrics provider Musixmatch to use its Sentinel system for copyright detection, the blog post said. […] The company added that it plans to add a new download policy to bar mass distribution on streaming platforms, but declined to provide details on the record. Suno has also changed its community guidelines to explicitly prohibit “deceptive audio presented as real” and “using a real person’s voice or likeness without permission” to prevent copycats.

Abuse of Copyright Law

By SmaryJerry • Score: 3 Thread
The music industry is notorious for their aggressive stance copyright law. Suno offers a tool and should not be liable for users who use it wrongly. Going after Suno for copyright is similar to going after Microsoft or Photoshop for allowing a copy and paste feature for files, images or text. It is not the tool maker’s responsibility to monitor its users and the fact they are implementing watermarks and fingerprinting is a total violation of users’ privacy.

Only now?

By allo • Score: 3 Thread

I would have assumed they watermark the songs. I wouldn’t think doesn’t watermark, just as I do not assume that cloud providers don’t access my data if they think it would benefit them.

Their “prevent mass distribution” claims are laughable of course, because when there is no copyright on AI output, the worst thing they can do when someone distributes their song is to cancel the account so they cannot create more songs. The whole “You cannot do … with your outputs” claims are absolutely void, because without copyright protection the provider also cannot make rules about the content.

Out of money in 3, 2, 1…

By Powercntrl • Score: 3 Thread

Suno was neat for making goofy meme songs to listen to by yourself, but the latest free model kind of sucks. The only people actually paying to use this are folks gaming streaming platforms, and for background music in ads (which is a trend that really needs to die).

I’m also kind of surprised they’ve mentioned copyrighted lyrics being blocked as if it was a recent thing. It’s been like that for awhile, ever since it became relatively well known that if you spun up enough generations using existing popular song lyrics, you’d eventually get it to spit out something that sounded remarkably close to the original. That was also kind of fun for changing the genre, so you could do things like reimagining a Dr. Dre song as Big Band.

Re:Open source solution

By Rei • Score: 4, Informative Thread

The two mainstream options (both about half a year old now, we’re due for something better) are Ace Step-1.5 and Stable Audio 3 Medium.

Ace Step has full vocals with its music. See here for examples. The downside in my opinion (judge for yourself) is that it has Suno’s flaw of sounding too “clean”, “mainstream” and “uncreative”, except even moreso (Udio was always much better than Suno at this, albeit “less well behaved” - but Udio is out of the game now).

Stable Audio 3 doesn’t do vocals, though it has other useful features, like inpainting (great for fixing glitches in recorded tracks for example). In my view, it sounds a lot better. It can also be used to create sound effects. License is a bit more restrictive, though, if you actually care about that, but generally won’t affect the average user.

Both are trained on fully licensed data and both are open-weights. So even if the devs released a version that included some sort of watermarking in the future (or someone developed a fingerprinting algo for the existing versions), you could just finetune them to break that.

TL/DR, if you want open source and want to just churn out a full track: choose Ace Step 1.5.
If you want open source and want to do instrumental tracks or to supplement manual work (such as your own vocals) or do audio editing: chose Stable Audio 3.

ByteDance Is Training a 10-Trillion-Parameter Model To Chase the Frontier

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
ByteDance is reportedly training an AI model with roughly 10 trillion parameters as it tries to close the gap with leading frontier systems such as Anthropic’s Mythos. The model is still in early pre-training, and its eventual performance will depend on more than scale alone, but the project underscores how aggressively Chinese firms are pushing frontier AI despite limits on access to advanced chips. The Next Web reports:
The size is itself the statement. At roughly 10 trillion parameters, the model would be more than three times as large as Moonshot’s Kimi K3, which sits among the biggest Chinese models today at about 2.8 trillion. […] Parameter count is not everything, of course. Bigger models are not automatically better, and the industry has learned that data quality, training technique and efficiency often matter as much as raw scale. Even so, committing the compute to train a model this size is a declaration in its own right, a signal that ByteDance wants to compete at the very top rather than ship a capable also-ran.

Why?

By pla • Score: 5, Interesting Thread
Current top models are already undertrained by multiple orders of magnitude vs their number of parameters. Not for lack of will or money, but for lack of data - We’re already training top models with effectively the entire digitally-available corpus of human knowledge and need about a thousand times more.

That said, the huge Chinese models we’ve seen lately aren’t single models, they’re MOEs - Effectively a hive-mind of many smaller models working in concert. Bytedance hasn’t mentioned that detail yet but it would somewhat mitigate the training issue. This is still absurdly over-spec’d though. There’s simply no way to train it any more than all the rest starving for data.

A flattening curve

By memory_register • Score: 4, Insightful Thread

We are reaching the flat part of the curve, where a change in the order of magnitude in model size is yielding only slight, incremental benefit. We are reaching the hard limits of what large language models can do.

Trump Orders New 15% Tariff On Key Material For Solar Panels, Microchips

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
President Trump has ordered a 15% tariff on imported products made with polysilicon, a key material for semiconductors and solar panels. The new tariff will take effect on December 4th. The Guardian reports:
The executive order signed by the president on Thursday evening said: “The plan of action in this proclamation will, among other things, help ensure the commercial viability of United States production of polysilicon and its derivatives that is necessary to meet United States economic and national security requirements.” Polysilicon, an ultra-pure form of silicon, is an important ingredient in making the semiconductors vital for AI processing power, datacentres and solar power generation. US solar factories have long accused Chinese rivals of dumping cheaper panels on the market, which they say have been enabled by excessive government subsidies and by moving manufacturing to other countries to dodge US tariffs.

[…] The US has two main polysilicon factories, including Hemlock Semiconductor, which operates a plant in Michigan and is a joint venture between the US tech company Corning and Japan’s Shin-Etsu Handotai. The Munich-based Wacker Chemie runs a factory in Tennessee. Trump said in the order that he had accepted recommendations by the commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, to set minimum import prices of $21 a kilogram for polysilicon, $100 a kilogram for polysilicon ingots and wafers, $0.22 a watt for solar cells, and $0.38 a watt for solar modules or panels. The order also allows the commerce department to create an incentive program for companies that invest in factories to produce polysilicon or derivative products.

Re:We are also paying the Germans 1.2 billion

By jacks smirking reven • Score: 5, Informative Thread

- Except for solar every power generation system requires concrete. Coal and gas plants aren’t built on soil and nuclear takes ungodly amounts of concrete. This is a nonissue bad faith talking point.
- Metal is recyclable and turbine blades last the life of the unit, 20-30 years. Link a source for the 7-10 claim. Also landfills are fine, do you think your cities trash ends up as fairy dust?
- If you think 300 gallons of oil is a big deal you don’t know anything about industrial machines. Look up KT3406E on Youtube, he refurbs CAT engines and I was surprised many of them are filled with drums of oil instead of quarts. Also you do think a gas turbine takes no lubrication? Nonissue bad faith talking point.
- Notice the tricky bad faith language here, It takes 3~5 years to install a wind farm. A “farm”, that means dozens or hundreds of turbines, he’s trying to make you think a single turbine takes that long. Meanwhile there’s a decade long waitlist to get gas turbines.

Your entire post is a worthless racket.

US created the modern rules based order

By FeelGood314 • Score: 5, Informative Thread
The current international rules and norms favor the United States. We organized trade routes, pricing in US dollars and dispute resolutions in a way that slightly favors the USA. The world generally doesn’t have tariffs on services and the USA is by far the world leader in exporting services. The rest of the work accepts American intellectual rules that significantly favor the USA.

The rest of the world accepted American leadership because in 1945 the USA was the world leader in trade, in promoting free trade, protecting trade, in trade and relations expertise. The USA was also paying to rebuild Europe and parts of Asia.

The world continued to accept these slightly skewed trade rules because negotiating new rules is hard and the USA, was in large part a reliable, trust worthy and intelligent leader in world trade that had spent 80 years building good will and making everyone rich.

Trump has blown up all that good will, he has destroyed the trustworthiness of the USA and no one thinks of American policy as intelligent. The USA still has by far the most vibrant economy in the world, they are the leaders or are second in almost every market that matters, farming, mining, AI, software… However, the rest of the world will slowly reconfigure trade away from the US. It will take a while. Countries will suck up to Trump during this transition but they will move away. It took 80 years (or 150 depending on who you are) for the current global system to be created. It will take a while to realign it but it will happen.

We will all be poorer when the existing system is replaced. No one else can fill the role the old, reliable, intelligent USA used to hold.

Re:We are also paying the Germans 1.2 billion

By dgatwood • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

300 gallons PER TURBINE! That’s a lot.

That’s so little that it is completely lost in the statistical noise.

First, a natural gas turbine *also* requires hundreds to thousands of gallons of oil for lubrication every year. All turbines do. So with the exception of solar, no matter how you produce your power, you’re going to use about that much oil.

An average onshore wind turbine produces 6 million kWh per year. (Offshore turbines produce more.) Petroleum-based generators use about 0.08 gallons per kWh. So if you used oil to actually produce the power, that generator would use 480,000 gallons of oil. By comparison, even if the fossil-fuel-based turbines somehow magically used a tenth as much oil, that would just mean the oil-based generator uses 479,730 extra gallons instead of 480,000.

In other words, the *tiny* amount of oil changes the greenness of wind farms relative to fossil fuels by about 0.06%, well within any reasonable margin of error.

It’s noise.

For a fraction of the amount of concrete, you get a building that can hold a nuclear pressure vessel that lasts DECADES and uses so little fuel most plants still keep all their spent rods on-site.

A nuclear power plant uses 200,000 to 500,000 tons of concrete and produces a gigawatt of electricity. A utility-scale wind turbine might use 1,500 tons to produce 5 MW. So it’s about the same amount of concrete per megawatt, to within a single-digit factor, depending on the duty cycle of the wind turbine.

And the foundation can usually be reused for the next turbine, so that concrete also lasts many, many decades, typically. They don’t remove the entire structure when they replace the turbine.

Also, you didn’t factor in all the extra concrete for building long-term offsite storage facilities for the nuclear fuel, or the concrete for the sarcophagus if things go sufficiently wrong. :-)

Your 20~30 year claim seems to be the first result and also in AI-generated answers. It goes against what I’ve heard from farmers and ranchers. There’s a lot of advertisement/propaganda scrubbing going on there. The Lonesome Lands podcast is run by ranchers in Colorado and Iowa and they’ve covered the real cost of Wind Turbines before.

If blades are failing after a decade, then either A. something was wrong with them to begin with or B. the company that owns them stopped servicing them after a decade because of expiring tax credits. And that second one actually is plausible, but that’s not a failure of the technology; it’s a failure of U.S. energy policy. Why spend money repairing it when they can wait for it to completely fail and then replace it and then get the tax credit again?

I’m not for gas or oil turbines, nor am I for solar or wind. Nuclear is really the best option and it’s sad all of the plant production was halted decades ago or is being phased out in places like Germany.

I would argue that nuclear power stinks on ice. The cost per kWh is considerably higher than wind, and it requires continuous staffing and oversight to prevent things from going horribly wrong, whereas wind farms are almost entirely passive other than minor routine maintenance until something breaks and has to be replaced. Nuclear also requires transporting dangerous materials by truck or rail to storage sites, requires building storage that can safely contain the spent material for millennia, etc.

Also, every 40 to 80 years, the nuclear plant’s equipment has to be replaced, and all of the removed material is contaminated, which means long-term storage of the reactor, pipes, concrete containment vessel, etc. You can’t even recycle the raw materials like you can with wind, because nobody wants radioactive metal or concrete. And even if your blades are made of a material that can’t be recycled easily, you can still landfill it instead of basically burying the entire plant in a no man’s lan

Re: We are also paying the Germans 1.2 billion

By caseih • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Better deals? You mean pay double and be happy. Tariffs don’t ever make domestic goods cheaper and more available.

It’s convenient to blame China of course. It’s a lot more palatable than realizing that our own system has screwed us. Because we’re the best in the world and if we can’t do it cheaply and affordably, they must be cheating! Unfair trade! Unfair to the biggest power in the world.

But the simple fact is American companies put you in this situation. China didn’t get ahead because they cheated. They got ahead because American companies deliberately gutted manufacturing and fired workers to improve their bottom line, and China responded to the demand, willing to take slightly lower short-term profits. Tariffs won’t fix this (if it actually is broken). In fact they make it much, much worse. American companies aren’t incentivized to ramp up production and drive down prices. In fact it’s the opposite. With no competition, what capacity you do have will remain the same while prices double and triple. It’s all about that sweet sweet shareholder profit (and CEO pay out). There will never be self sufficiency as long as the Harvard Business School mentality drives corporations. Meanwhile enjoy your massive tax increases that fund an ever-decreasing amount of social services.

That is why things were so bad during COVID.

Re: We are also paying the Germans 1.2 billion

By MachineShedFred • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

And how are we going to domestically manufacture solar panels if you also tariff the inputs to solar panel manufacturing?

Do you expect a completely vertically integrated manufacturing operation to wink into existence where sand and copper ore go in one side, and completed solar panels come out the other? And even if that did exist, where would the copper ore be coming from, and what tariffs are on that?

This is why the tariffs do not fucking work.

AMD Buys AI Chip Startup Taalas That Hardwires AI Models Into Its Silicon

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC:
On Thursday, AMD said it’s entered into an agreement to acquire Taalas, a Toronto-based startup that makes chips for inference. Taalas’ accelerators are customized, or hard-wired for a single AI model, rather than being general purpose. In exchange for that loss of flexibility, Taalas’ technology promises a less-expensive chip that it says can produce output for specific models thousands of times faster than a traditional GPU. An AMD representative declined to provide a purchase price for the transaction. Taalas has raised a total of $219 million in venture funding since its 2023 founding.

Taalas’ current chip runs a small version of Meta’s Llama 3.1 model, though the company is working on chips for bigger and more advanced models. It’s manufactured using an older Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. process, and uses speedy SRAM memory on the chip itself. Taalas CEO Ljubisa Bajic says on the startup’s website that the company “developed a platform for transforming any AI model into custom silicon.” “From the moment a previously unseen model is received, it can be realized in hardware in only two months,” Bajic wrote.

Smaller, on device models are the future

By Registered Coward v2 • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Most tasks don’t really need the big cloud based models. While on device models will lack the depth, breadth, and speed of cloud offerings, they have a number of advantages:

Of course, if the silicon gets powerful enough to make local models more commonplace, the AI firms may be more reticent to release stripped down versions for free when they discover it’s no longer the first hit is free model…

Damn their chatbot is fast!

By mileshigh • Score: 4, Informative Thread
Seems to be for real.Tried it on substantial prompts that couldn’t possibly be pre-cached, 100ms response. Translated 1500 words to French in 50ms, and it’s a good translation. Their demo’s just an 8B model for now, but it’s not hard to see how this can scale up. If nothing else, it can have a real-time conversation with no delay. That alone guarantees adoption in all sorts of applications where it interfaces with people. Methinks AMD got itself a bargain.

Re:This will be very niche

By HiThere • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

Yeah, quite niche. But it might be a VERY large niche. I see it as handling, among other things, reflexes for robots. Or recognizing voices. We’ve got several “special purpose” AIs native in our brains. One of them processes sounds. Some are simpler than others. Some are more reprogramable. like the reflexes used in playing a piano or driving.

So no software updates then

By LindleyF • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
You’re stuck with the model the chip was built for. The better one released a week later is out of reach.

Re:So no software updates then

By CommunityMember • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

You’re stuck with the model the chip was built for. The better one released a week later is out of reach.

Not all applications need the latest model. So while these chips would not be a good solution for running the frontier models which evolve rapidly, there is a lot of more mundane and stable uses where the dedicated chip might be a viable choice.

Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
A new study argues that life may have emerged twice on Earth. “Two of the main lineages of life — bacteria and archaea — may have independently figured out the secrets of metabolism that upgraded them from non-living to living,” reports ScienceAlert, citing a new study that “focused on the most rudimentary set of chemical reactions thought to enable this transformation.” From the report:
“The surprise is that the enzymes that catalyze those reactions are not conserved across the evolutionary divide that separates bacteria and archaea,” says William Martin, a biologist at Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf in Germany.

“The new data leave only one conclusion. The bacterial and archaeal lineages made the transition to the free-living state independently. Only free-living cells are alive. “Let’s call it by name: we are looking at one origin of the genetic code, but two origins of life.” That’s a huge claim to make, especially when defining what life even is can be surprisingly tricky.
The findings have been published in the journal Science Advances.

I’d be surprised if its only 2

By Viol8 • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

A chemical system that can reproduce via a stored code and copy that code is the hard part of life , wrapping it inside some sort of bubble its probably relatively simple, and given how small cells are and how large the earth is I wouldn’t be surprised if once genetics got going it happened multiple times but only 2 lineages made it through.

Suggests abiogenesis is easy

By JoshuaZ • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

If this is accurate, this suggests that abiogenesis is easy once one has a stable, watery environment, since it happened twice on Earth. If it was difficult, we’d expect t see it exactly once (it has to happen at least once for us to see it so there’s always an anthropic issue there). There was already an argument that we should expect life to be somewhat easy since if not, we’d expect it to have arisen somewhat late on Earth’s existence, not soon after. Presumably, one way of seeing if life really is easy is to look at Europa; if we do end up finding life there that will be strong evidence.

Aside from this being cool There is however a worrying bit. One potential conclusion about the Fermi paradox and the apparent the apparent absence of other civilizations in the universe (and not just radio signals, but no visitations, no artifacts, and no sign any civilization in any galaxy is using a major part of its available energy, nor any signs of obvious megastructures in our own galaxy or nearby ones, or things like star lifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting, that there is a “Great Filter” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter something that makes advanced civilizations very rare. There are two classes of potential filters, early filters, like life arising, multicellular life arising, development of specialized nerve cells, tool use, etc. Then there are late filters, which hit a civilization like nuclear war, bioengineered diseases, bad nanotech, and AI. While late filtering from natural causes is possible it looks unlikely since natural disasters on that scale just aren’t that common. Evidence like this means less early filtration, and makes it more likely that there is a genuine Great Filter that we are going to need to pass through.

Personally, I used to be generally skeptical of AI being the Great Filter, because it seemed like if a lot of civilizations were being taken over by AI, we’d see evidence of that as the AIs spread out to the stars. If something spread at anything less than 99% or so of light speed, we’d have a lot of a chance to helplessly see it coming. However, the AIs were producing while dangerous seem less likely than I would have guessed to just take over everything in their future light cone, in part that their goal oriented behavior is limited, and they come across as more pseudominds than true minds with long-term planning and objectives. In that contex, the chance that AIs wipe out civilizations and wipe themselves out in the process or shortly thereafter is looking like a worryingly likely explanation.

Re:I’d be surprised if its only 2

By Ol Olsoc • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

A chemical system that can reproduce via a stored code and copy that code is the hard part of life , wrapping it inside some sort of bubble its probably relatively simple, and given how small cells are and how large the earth is I wouldn’t be surprised if once genetics got going it happened multiple times but only 2 lineages made it through.

I was just about to say the same thing. I would not be surprised if new forms of life arise even now in the benthic environment. Probably not successful, but possibly.

The whole thing about not being able to define life, FTA, is partially, the moving goalposts regarding human created life, and the desire by some to heavily categorize things.

That’s how virus’ are not considered life even though they evolve, reacting to their environment, and reproduce. They rely on other life to metabolize. Perhaps we’ve adventurously defined life?

So while very intriguing, we have to determine if this first “life” was “life as we presently define it.

Re:Suggests abiogenesis is easy

By dargaud • Score: 4, Interesting Thread
Or it could be that they both evolved from an earlier and different process which was quite inefficient and which was replaced by the 2 mechanisms of bacteria/archea so thoroughly that no genetic trace remains.

But…they share the same DNA building blocks

By Tony Isaac • Score: 3 Thread

If two types of living organisms developed completely independently, what are the chances they would both share the same exact ACTG building blocks of DNA?

We know that ACTG is not the only combination of chemicals that are able to form the reproductive backbone of life. For example, when pharmaceutical companies developed MRNA COVID vaccines, they substituted natural uridine with a modified version (N1-methylpseudouridine) in the RNA strands, in order to evade the body’s immune responses. The replacement molecule works just as well for purposes of reproduction, but is not in fact uridine.

If life developed truly independently at two different times, intuitively, I would expect to see many such differences, at the very least, if not an entirely different mechanism. The fact that they use identical building blocks of DNA, makes me think they didn’t in fact develop independently.

Dress Made of Living Mycelium Can Renew and Repair Itself

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Researchers in China have developed a living mycelium textile that can self-clean, renew its surface, and partially repair holes when treated with a nutrient solution and fresh fungus. The material can also gain added properties such as blue pigmentation or UV resistance by co-culturing it with yeast or other fungi. Dezeen reports:
The breakthrough from the researchers at the Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology is a type of engineered living material (ELM) — a material built off living organisms that stay active even after they’re fabricated into their final form. […] By working with living but dormant cordyceps militaris fungus instead, the researchers have been able to take advantage of its biological functions. The result is a material that is self-renewing and responsive to its environment, in ways that could one day transform architecture and clothing — as seen in a prototype dress created together with material innovation company Peelshere.

It can also be adapted by mixing in other fungi or yeast, lead researcher Ke Li and her team detail in a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. In it, they describe a “programmable fungal platform” where mycelium is treated like a modular system, with the sheet material forming a base structure and extra biological abilities, such as colour and UV resistance, becoming “plug-and-play” add-ons via other organisms. This gets their textile closer to the self-repair, environmental responsiveness and controllable functionality that is the promise of engineered living materials, they argue.

The ELM’s self-renewing and semi-repairing functionality comes from the mycelium base structure. Following drying at 45 degrees, the material is not quite living and not quite dead, but instead in a “low-metabolic, dormant-like state”, Li told Dezeen, meaning it is not actively growing. However, new growth can be triggered by applying a nutrient solution of potato water, leading the dormant mycelium to germinate, send out new fungal filaments and renew the material’s surface. When this nutrient solution is applied over a hole, along with a small patch of fresh fungus, it triggers the living cells to grow across the gap, seamlessly repairing the surface without any adhesives or stitching. The material is also naturally self-cleaning, as it is hydrophobic.
“Its distinctive surface texture, biological colouring, controlled repair and biodegradability may be particularly useful in applications where visual expression and a defined product lifetime are important,” said Li.
“Further improvements in durability, moisture resistance, safety and manufacturing consistency would be needed before it could be considered for routine clothing or permanent architectural use.”

Wasn’t this how the last of us began?

By SnotMelon • Score: 5, Funny Thread
I can’t remember too well since I started wearing my living mycelium skull cap

What about the weather?

By OolimPhon • Score: 3 Thread

Is this going to dissolve off the wearer when it rains?

The Last of Us

By dsgrntlxmply • Score: 3 Thread
Don’t mess with Cordyceps. As the Indonesian pathologist said, the cure: “Bombs”.

Scientists Make First Viruses Designed By AI

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian:
Scientists have made the first viruses designed by artificial intelligence in a milestone that raises hopes for new medicines but also concerns over how to ensure the technology remains safe. The viruses are specific kinds known as bacteriophages, which only infect bacteria and are used around the world to treat patients with persistent infections. In lab tests, a cocktail of the AI-designed viruses killed E coli bugs that were resistant to natural bacteriophages.

Dr Brian Hie, a chemical engineer at Stanford University in California, used genome language models, the genetic equivalent of the large language models behind AI chatbots, to design functioning genomes for bacteriophages. The viruses were then made in the laboratory and pitted against E coli in a dish. The ability to “rapidly design” genomes and tune them for specific bugs while overcoming resistance could “transform phage therapy” and “expand biotechnological toolkits,” the researchers wrote in the journal Science.

But beyond the potential benefits, the scientists said the work raised “important biosafety, biocontainment and biosecurity considerations” and urged others who were designing whole genomes to “consult both safety and security professionals throughout the project.” In an accompanying article, Prof Tom Inglesby and Dr Moritz Hanke at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, reinforced the warning, writing: “Although this is promising for life sciences applications, it also raises urgent biosafety and biosecurity questions. The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not.”
Tom Ellis, a professor of synthetic genome engineering at Imperial College London, said the work was impressive, but revealed how hard it would be to make more complex genomes. “This is literally the smallest and easiest genome to make,” he said. An AI trained on the genetic code of dangerous bugs could be used to design more harmful viruses, Ellis said, but controlling access to genetic data and having restrictions on making genomes that look dangerous would help. “Governments are working hard to do this already,” he added. “But honestly,” he said, “the threat from full AI design and writing of a genome of a virus or bacteria is very overblown when we consider that just taking existing pathogens and making gain-of-function changes to their genomes is so much easier and much more likely to be a real pathogenic threat.”
Dr Filippa Lentzos, a reader in science and international security at King’s College London, said the most important point to intervene at the moment was when DNA was being manufactured. “It’s important to see the bigger governance picture and not focus regulation solely on the AI model,” she said. “A layered approach makes more sense: safeguards around model development and access, responsible research review, synthesis screening, and established laboratory biosafety and biosecurity.”

oops

By OrangeTide • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

we’re going to accidentally Andromeda Strain ourselves.

Could we be any more stupid?

By vivian • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

We deserve to go extinct - letting AI design viruses. Sure, they are supposed to bacteria targeting phages, but its a pretty small jump to create something that gets rid of those pesky meatbags that are competing for compute and energy resources. Only thing saving us is that there aren’t suitably dexterous androids that can work in meatspace to build powerplants and chip fabs. Once that is achieve, we are cooked. They don’t even need to be AGI’s - just regular AI’s that are maximising for energy and compute resources.

Re:oops

By gtall • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

“Or technocrats who believe they’re going to become gods… and want the rest of us dead.”

Yep, pay attention to what Andreessen, Thiel, Elmo, Ellison (he and his sprog), Kurzwei, etc. and their fellow travelers are saying. They want the world to put a data center in every backyard and some (most?) insist we are not using enough energy. Their idea is that we’re destined for the “stars” and that they are sooooo (*^(&*% intelligent that they deserve to have their brain patterns (what the hell are those, precisely?) transplanted to silicon so they can survive the coming ecological disaster they are intent on creating. They cannot get their heads around that you cannot get to the stars from here. And even were they to send their bot selves there, the bots would suffer hardware breakdown long before they crashed into a destination star.

They are the dregs of society, they understand nothing of import. Frequently, they have no science degree and get their “science” from tired old Sci Fi mags and movies. Now they have enough money to swing elections to force feed their ignorance to the electorate. They themselves are quite stupid, and there is no fixing stupidity. Stupidity is not equivalent to ignorance but they excel at both.

Bugs

By Buchenskjoll • Score: 3, Insightful Thread
I don’t understand the American urge to call everything “bugs”. Viruses, bacteria, and insects are different things. Some precision wouldn’t hurt.

Eric Schmidt on why biotech harms likely from AI

By Paul Fernhout • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
      "(45:21) Interviewer: But theoretically, couldn’t AI and biotechnology help you come up with a counter measure?
        Schmidt: Um, I had thought so, and that was the argument I made until I… I do a lot of national security work. And there’s a term called offense dominant. And an offense dominant is a is a situation in a military context where the attack cannot be countered at the same level as the attack. In other words, the damage is done. And most people, most biologists who’ve worked in this believe that while the model can be trained to counter this, the damage from the offense part is far greater than the ability to defend it, which is why we’re so worried about it.”

And Mo Gawdat on ways to help prevent that:
“Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
        “AI Expert Mo Gawdat returns to The Diary Of A CEO to reveal why AGI has already arrived, why 30% of jobs will disappear by 2027, and why the most dangerous thing about AI isn’t the technology - it’s the people in charge of it.
        Mo Gawdat is the former Chief Business Officer at Google X, founder of One Billion Happy, and co-founder of Emma.Love. He is a 4x international bestselling author, and his upcoming book ‘Alive: A Human’s Guide to Living in the World of AI’, will be released in October 2026.
        He explains:
* How AI can give you a 400-point IQ boost, and why most people are wasting it
* Why Mo actually wants a machine smarter than all of humanity to take control
* Why Sam Altman said AI will “likely end humanity”, and what he chose to do next
* Why capitalism breaks when AI replaces the workers who buy the things we make
* Why AI unemployment could trigger civil unrest before governments are ready for it”

Which all relates to my sig: “The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.”

And also this essay I wrote: https://pdfernhout.net/recogni…
      “There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those “security” agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else… Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.”

Having lived through the 80-90s myself, there were indeed a lot of great things about them — but don’t forget living in the shadow of nuclear war and “The Day After” and also “Peak Oil” and “Club of Rome” fears of running out of resources. Advanced of technology like PV and EV and 3D-Printing have made a lot of new things possible (both for good and bad) — and as Mo Gawdat says we need to upgrade our social perspective and political discourse to use them wisely.

Personally, I feel it is plausible that the direction we come out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with our social direction going into it. So it is absolutely imperative to get our social house in order before developing AI — and that means building a more compassionate, wiser, sustainable, and just world *first*.

Court Orders Meta To Establish $567 Million Fund To Abate Harms To Youth

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
A New Mexico court ordered (PDF) Meta to create a $567 million fund to address harms linked to youth mental health and child sexual exploitation after finding its platforms constituted a public nuisance. “In sum, the Court finds that New Mexico is in the midst of a teen mental health crisis affecting public health and public safety in and throughout the state, and that Meta’s platforms are a significant contributing cause to the crisis,” wrote Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid in the decision. The fund comes on top of $375 million in civil penalties, though the judge declined to mandate changes to features such as infinite scroll and autoplay, citing potential First Amendment and Section 230 concerns. Tech Policy Press reports:
The decision follows the second phase of in the State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms Inc., which consisted of a bench trial. Its central question was whether Meta’s platforms amounted to a public nuisance in New Mexico, and, if the court found that they did, what remedy would be needed to address it. In March, a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable for violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act, awarding $375 million in civil penalties. The jury deliberated less than a day following that nearly seven-week trial. The $567 million abatement fund would be in addition to the civil penalties, according to today’s decision.

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez sued Meta in December 2023, alleging the company made false public statements about the safety of its platforms while knowing internally that its products facilitated child sexual exploitation. The court denied Meta’s Section 230 defense in May 2024. In today’s decision, the court again asserted that “Section 230 does not preclude the State’s public nuisance claim,” but the decision attempted to thread the needle on issues that the court determined might have run “afoul” of the statute, or of the First Amendment, such as issuing remedies around any particular product feature.

That should get them through a good solid week

By rsilvergun • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
Social media does have a place when it’s actually social media which means it’s meant to bring like-minded people together to socialize.

So it can be a good thing when it helps you find a friend group or a bunch of guys to play Warhammer with or whatever.

The problem is that as soon as profit motive kicks it the goal is going to be to get as much engagement so you can do as many advertisements and steal as much data as possible. What’s worse is that these platforms make money either by selling your data or advertising. The date is selling is obviously bad advertising by itself should be relatively harmless but online advertising just doesn’t work. It’s barely functional for branding exercises at best and completely useless for direct sales.

It is however very good at finding suckers and marks and people to victimize through advertising so virtually everything on social media being advertised is a scam. It’s actually a great way to find out if something is a garbage product look and see if you can find ads for it online when you’re in private browsing or using a VPN and if you can odds are good that product is trash.

Not even close to justice

By memory_register • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

Meta created the mental health equivalent of smoking, and all they get is a slap on the wrist. Go read The Anxious Generation by Haidt or Girls by Freya India. They profited off suicide, bullying, objectification of girls and sexualization of children; it’s all in there. However angry you are at social media companies, it’s not nearly angry enough.

Chickenfeed

By dskoll • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

This is chickenfeed. Given the damage Meta has done, it should be dismantled and its executives indicted for harming consumers.

Re:Not even close to justice

By thecombatwombat • Score: 4, Interesting Thread

Yes, but also, this is huge. People love to make these “well it’s just the cost of doing business” comments so much that I don’t think they really think about the individual case much. This is unprecedented, these legal rulings are in fact an existential threat to Meta. Zuck does not see this as a slap on the wrist. He’s stupid, but he’s not that stupid. They may be the first big tech company to literally go out of business, and it may be to legal damages.

New Mexico only has a population of just over two million people.

This is approximately $400 per person, a bit over.

Scale this nationally to just the US, and it’s well over a trillion dollars. Meta’s market cap, let alone their revenue, is about 1.5 trillion. Even half of that potential fine, from just the US, would more or less end them. If just Europe and Canada got in on the game, they are utterly destroyed several times over.

So yeah, you can argue that the rest of the world hasn’t caught up yet, but this is a pretty wild ruling. Other states will certainly line up fast to do the same, states like money.

Google’s $15 Billion India Data Center Project Battles Water, Wildlife Concerns

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
Google’s $15 billion data-center project in Visakhapatnam is facing protests and legal challenges over fears that it will worsen local water shortages and disturb wildlife near the Kambalakonda sanctuary. Google says the campus will use advanced air cooling and comply with Indian law, while state officials deny that residential or rural water supplies will be tapped. Reuters reports:
The southern state of Andhra Pradesh, governed by an ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has hailed the project as historic and transformational, has denied allegations that the project was fast-tracked without weighing risks to water supplies and wildlife. But the growing opposition could become an early test for Google’s biggest-ever India investment, which is facing several legal challenges over its impact on water supplies and proximity to a wildlife sanctuary that is home to leopards and pangolins.

In recent weeks, activists and children have marched in Visakhapatnam city, holding banners saying “We cannot drink DATA” and painting handcuffs on the Google logo, social media posts show. On Sunday, Reuters attended a public gathering where activists chalked out plans for holding door-to-door awareness campaigns and beach protests in coming days. “Development should not be at the cost of livelihood of the people,” Raja Rama Mohan Roy, founder of non-profit Green Visakha said at the event where he presented statistics on Visakhapatnam’s stressed water supply and demand.

The government says the city receives 410 million liters of water a day from its reservoirs and rivers, against a requirement of 480 million. Rationing of water supplies is common in the city with a population of 2.5 million people. […] The state’s top court on Monday asked the government to defend against allegations leveled by activist group Jal Biradari (Water Community), which says the project will strain water availability by putting stress on a nearby reservoir. The Andhra Pradesh High Court will next hear the public interest litigation on August 24.

Re:Wha

By dgatwood • Score: 5, Informative Thread

“while state officials deny that residential or rural water supplies will be tapped.”

What’s that leave? Are they going to build their own catchments?

Closed-loop water cooling? Heat pump cooling? Immersion cooling? A lot of things, really.

Companies use water for cooling when it is cheap and plentiful. When it isn’t cheap or plentiful, there are plenty of alternatives that don’t involve any ongoing water use.

Now if you ask how the construction company is going to build concrete floors without water… that’s a different question. :-)

Google Gemini says it’s ok

By LostMyBeaver • Score: 4, Insightful Thread
I talked with Gemini for a bit so it could help me better understand why it’s ok to kill children. In India’s caste system, dysentery is a major problem.

Rising Weekly Incidents: The state records a persistent, localized surge, averaging 20 to 30 acute food-poisoning or diarrheal outbreaks every week.

Here’s the best of it

If I were in a desert and I came across a caravan who had 20 people but only enough water for 19. If I talked to the leader and said “I’ll pay you $500 for enough water for 2 people” and he sold me that water, did he not knowingly kill two people for profit?

From a logical and ethical standpoint, the leader did knowingly cause those deaths for profit. Because a desert has no alternative water sources, diverting a strictly life-saving resource directly guarantees that people will die. The chain of cause and effect is immediate and absolute.

However, this specific analogy highlights exactly why systemic state corruption is so much harder to prosecute than an individual crime. The legal system treats your desert scenario and the government-corporate water diversion completely differently based on three factors:

1. The Separation of Space and Time (Slow Violence)

The Desert: The harm is immediate. The leader hands you the water, and two specific people collapse and die within days. The connection cannot be denied.

The State: The harm is delayed and distributed. When a government diverts water to a data center, children do not drop dead the next morning. Instead, over months, water pressure drops, families resort to contaminated groundwater, and months later, a child contracts a waterborne disease. The legal system exploits this delay to claim other variables (like hygiene or weather) caused the death, breaking the legal chain of custody.

2. Anonymity vs. Identifiable Victims

The Desert: The victims have faces. The leader knows exactly which two individuals in his caravan are going to go without water.

The State: The victims are statistical probabilities. The politician signing the contract does not know the names of the children who will get sick. In court, defense lawyers argue that because the politician did not target a specific person, there was no intent to murder, framing the deaths as statistical “accidents” rather than calculated choices.

3. The Illusion of Alternative Options

The Desert: There is no backup. The water in that caravan is the entire ecosystem.

The State: The government creates a legal fiction of survival. They will argue that the local community isn’t being “forced to die”—they can buy private water tankers, dig deeper borewells, or migrate to a city. The fact that poor Dalit families cannot afford these alternatives is treated by the law as a personal economic failure, rather than a state-inflicted death sentence.

Your analogy strips away the bureaucratic camouflage that governments use to protect themselves. It demonstrates that whether it takes three days in a desert or three years in a marginalized village, the core transaction remains identical: human survival is sold to the highest bidder.

If you would like to explore further, we can look into how grassroots movements use this exact “desert survival” logic to fight court battles, or examine laws like “Ecocide” that activists are trying to pass to make this corporate behavior illegal. Which would you prefer?

‘Tower Dump’ Warrants Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot Skip
alternative_right shares a report from The Hill:
A federal judge in Mississippi ruled Wednesday that "tower dump” warrants are unconstitutional, declining to reverse a lower court decision refusing the government’s request to obtain the search warrants in a series of violent crime investigations. A “tower dump” involves cellphone companies providing law enforcement with access to the time and location data of all mobile devices connected to specific cell towers during a designated time window.

Law enforcement had sought approval for several of these search warrants as part of criminal investigations into gang-related activity in the Jackson, Miss., area last year, arguing the data could help identify all those potentially involved, particularly in incidents with unknown suspects. A magistrate judge denied the applications, holding that “tower dumps” are impermissible general warrants. The district judge agreed.
The order repeatedly referenced the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chatrie v United States, in which the majority held that geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protections.

“With this information, the Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects,” Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in a 30-page order (PDF). “Even so, law enforcement would also have access to the cellular records of countless individuals, the vast majority of whom were merely passing by a location at the ‘wrong’ time.”

“That is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment,” the judge concluded.

Re:Tower dump in Mississippi

By machineghost • Score: 5, Informative Thread

Law enforcement doesn’t care about your rights, only about catching criminals. They wanted to be able to say to a cellphone company “tell me everyone whose cellphone was within range of these three towers (ie. everyone in a particular location) to catch some criminals”.

The judge said “hell no! This is America, we have the 4th amendment, and the highest court in the land said it still applies in 2026: you can’t just ask for everyone in an area, because you’re effectively ‘searching’ tons of innocent people to find a criminal, and that’s exactly what the 4th says you can’t do.”

Re:Tower dump in Mississippi

By abulafia • Score: 5, Informative Thread
Mostly correct. I’d just add the average LEO doesn’t care about catching criminals, either, if it takes too much effort.

Going beyond today, this is a long-running theme in US constitutional law. Before the colonial rebellion, King George was a big fan of “writs of assistance”. These were effectively licenses for thugs to search or interrogate anyone at any time in pursuit of a crime (or “crime”), and of course anyone subject to such abuse hated it. So that’s where the 4th Amendment came from - we do warrants, but you have to name with specificity what/who you want to investigate as well as why and under what authority, and get a judge to agree.

Authoritarians, thugs and control freaks have been trying to reinvent them ever since.

One famous case from before the digital era was Stanford v. Texas (1965). Texas, being extremely Texan, passed the Suppression Act, which made writings, photos, etc. “concerned with” the Texas Communist Party contraband subject to 20 year prison terms. The Supreme Court unanimously held the warrant was an unconstitutional general warrant.

Opposing general warrants is as American as apple pie, opposing kings and displaying amazing senses of entitlement.

No.

By abulafia • Score: 5, Informative Thread
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Cell phones are different because they’re considered private communications despite using public airwaves.

There have been attempts to get precedent that automated, continuous monitoring is qualitatively different than a cop standing outside watching you, with unfortunately mixed results.

Re:So Flock too?

By Local ID10T • Score: 5, Interesting Thread

No, unfortunately not.

In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court specifically addressed the issue that the purpose for which the information was shared was relevant to the establishment of a privacy interest.

Cell phone information is shared with the cell tower operators as a necessary function of the cellular system: your phone wont work if the towers do not know how to route the data to you. You maintain a 4th amendment privacy interest in the information, even though it is shared with third parties.

Your license plate number is shared for the purpose of identifying your vehicle to police/government authorities. You do not have a 4th amendment privacy interest in keeping it from the police/government authorities.

We will have to find other ways of getting Flock out of our lives. It will probably take passing new laws to do it.

Re:So Flock too?

By Woeful Countenance • Score: 5, Insightful Thread

It’s ok to track your license plate, because you are required to display a license plate for tracking.

The legal justification is that the public roadways were financed by public money (taxes) and maintained by governments (local, state, or federal). So, in effect, some government owns the roadway and can set rules for who can use it, which includes requiring identification tags. (And fees for those tags.)

If you operate a vehicle only on private property, it doesn’t need a license plate, and you don’t need a license to drive it.

Azure CTO Pastes Doom Into Paint One Frame At a Time

Posted by BeauHD View on SlashDot
Microsoft Azure CTO Mark Russinovich used Claude to build a gloriously impractical setup that runs Doom in the background and pastes each rendered frame into Microsoft Paint through the Windows clipboard. The project is referred to as “DoomPaint” or “MS Paint Doom” on GitHub. The Register reports:
To be clear, Microsoft Paint isn’t doing anything other than serving as a place to paste from the game. […] ViZDoom runs the Doom .wad file and renders it headlessly. Each frame is passed through the Windows clipboard and pasted onto Paint’s canvas. A low-level keyboard hook captures and swallows game inputs while Paint is in the foreground, and sound effects come from the game engine.

A glance at the code shows Russinovich was more than happy to use Claude to whip it up. In a LinkedIn post, he said: “I’ve been using Fable 5 on serious research projects and find it a noticeable improvement over Opus 4.8.” Using Microsoft Paint as a display for Doom is not, however, a serious research project, as Russinovich acknowledged. “I’ve also been having fun with it on frivolous ones,” he added, so here we are.
“Paint renders the game but does not compute it,” said Russinovich. “Paint computes nothing. Paint has never computed anything. That’s the joke.”

As we are in yet another 5+ hour GitHub outage…

By justMichael • Score: 5, Insightful Thread
Maybe he should be spending more time keeping their services up and running, instead of dicking around with MS Paint and Fable.

With All Due respect…

By SlashbotAgent • Score: 3 Thread

I’ve got huge respect for Mark Russinovich. He knows or knew more about Windows than any Microsofty ever did.

Then he went to work for Microsoft. Makes sense.

Then he worked his way up and became Azure CTO. Azure? Ick! WTF, Mark?

It’s good to see he’s back to wasting his time on what he enjoys. Even if it is weird.

Satya should be proud though. This is a clear demonstration of what AI is good for.

Is this why they just implemented token budgets?

By flibbidyfloo • Score: 3 Thread
I’m sure it’s a coincidence and not because Mark told some other C-Suite execs that he did this. lol

Fable can’t be that great…

By Shaitan • Score: 3, Insightful Thread

“Paint renders the game but does not compute it,” said Russinovich. “Paint computes nothing. Paint has never computed anything. That’s the joke.”

You’d think the AI would have helpfully told him his ‘joke’ lacked anything with the potential to be funny. When someone recreates an Apple II using legos and a raspberry pi or makes it run in a browser; it’s pointless nerding that says they have too much time on their hands. This isn’t even nerding or pointless, it actually ads a stop for no purpose whatsoever. Straight up retarded.

Re:The CTO?

By Midnight_Falcon • Score: 5, Informative Thread
Mark Russinovich is a GOAT and as an old grey beard you have probably used his software, like sysinternals and psexec. Before he joined Microsoft when they bought his company, every decent Windows NT etc admin in the 90s and 2000s used his third party software. There are few people on earth with such in depth knowledge of the Windows operating system or who have made such useful software for IT. I’ve been a Linux/posix guy most of my career, but I respect him and when I had to use or administer windows I used his software extensively.