The only thing that has successfully managed to thwart the FBI in their attempts to break into a phone was Apple’s hardware based encryption. To such an extent that they took legal and legislative actions to try and circumvent it. The specifics of how the encryption works is irrelevant to this argument, and you are more than welcome to consider that point conceded.

I’m not claiming iPhones are superior. I don’t care about dumb OS wars, just don’t put things on your phone expecting that they can’t be retrieved. That’s the only point I’m trying to make here.

And the keys absolutely would give them access since those keys are used to sign Apple software which runs with enough privileges to access the encryption keys stored in the “Secure Enclave”. Anything you entrust to a company’s software is only as secure as the company wants to make it, and the only company to publicly resist granting that acces is Apple (so far)

The Secure Enclave is a component on Apple system on chip (SoC) that is included on all recent iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod devices, and on a Mac with Apple silicon as well as those with the Apple T2 Security Chip. The Secure Enclave itself follows the same principle of design as the SoC does, containing its own discrete boot ROM and AES engine. The Secure Enclave also provides the foundation for the secure generation and storage of the keys necessary for encrypting data at rest, and it protects and evaluates the biometric data for Face ID and Touch ID.

https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-security-overview-secf020d1074/web

The FBI wanted access to Apple’s encryption keys which they use to sign their software. They don’t have ‘your’ encryption keys, they have their own that the FBI wanted to use to bypass these features. They eventually dropped it because they found a zero day exploit which apple fixed in later versions. That is why the newer phones aren’t vulnerable (yet).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute

They’re exploiting vulnerabilities and back doors not brute forcing your passcode. The only way you’re keeping them out is with hardware encryption which the iPhone has and probably why it’s the only one not vulnerable. Hardware encryption also won’t matter if your vendor shares their keys with law enforcement. As far as I’m aware, Apple is the only one that’s gone to court and successfully defended their right to refuse access to encryption keys.

Don’t put anything incriminating on your phones.

a fine is a price.

It’s the ISP cutting the Ethernet by opposing net neutrality so they can force you to use their overpriced cable TV service. An inverted mockery of the traditional “cord cutting”, just as the image depicts.

The thing exact thing Squid Game is satirizing resembles Squid Game? I’m shocked.

how is it an experiment to restore things to the way they used to be? pretty sure we already know how it works out.

Non invasive BCI capable of the exact stuff neuralink has demonstrated has existed for a while and its probably a much more viable way to help the disabled than cramming chips into their head.

There certainly is a history of attacking Apple over their use of encryption. I wonder if they’re still mad they didn’t get that iPhone backdoor they wanted.

wouldnt it make more sense to do a trial that tests their supposed advantages over purpose built robots rather than one which decidedly does not

Yeah but the article says the only thing these ones are gonna do is deliver parts which is probably overkill for the likely expense for the kind of sophistication necessary to imitate even a fraction of a human worker’s versatility. To say nothing about the difficulty involved in adapting them to various tasks without reprogramming or training.

I cannot conceive of a task where a humanoid robot would be better suited than just a robot built for the task without trying to mimic a human form.

gambling repeatedly with other people’s money

so… a stock broker?

I mean it’s still an AI, it’s not going to be able to perfectly block everything because they’re statistical, not deterministic. I’ve had Bing block generated images from displaying because they probably got classified as a banned subject, so it’s not exactly unprecedented.

Image generation models are also classification models.

Gonna start a business for car wraps with integrated faraday cages

Concerning

You’re not entirely wrong. It’s more like a series of multi-dimensional maps with hundreds or thousands of true/false pathways stacked on top of each other, then carved into by training until it takes on a shape that produces the ‘correct’ output from your inputs.

The part you’re missing is the metadata. AI (neural networks, specifically) are trained on the data as well as some sort of contextal metadata related to what they’re being trained to do. For example, with reddit posts they would feed things like “this post is popular”, “this post was controversial”, “this post has many views”, etc. in addition to the post text if they wanted an AI that could spit out posts that are likely to do well on reddit.

Quantity is a concern; you need to reach a threshold of data which is fairly large to have any hope of training an AI well, but there are diminishing returns after a certain point. The more data you feed it the more you have to potentially add metadata that can only be provided by humans. For instance with sentiment analysis you need a human being to sit down and identify various samples of text with different emotional responses, since computers can’t really do that automatically.

Quality is less of a concern. Bad quality data, or data with poorly applied metadata will result in AI with less “accuracy”. A few outliers and mistakes here and there won’t be too impactful, though. Quality here could be defined by how well your training set of data represents the kind of input you’ll be expecting it to work with.