It only gets worse if you don’t take action. If you can, quit and find a distraction unrelated to your career. Sometimes it takes years for people to bounce back, sometimes only months.
Can you imagine Palo Alto HS running this experiment today? Parents and students would be enraged. The teacher would be fired.
The point was to show how easy it is to get caught up in such movements (all of us are susceptible). There’s a good book that shares this story from an ordinary german citizen:
My takeaway is that way back in the 1960s, someone proved that public schools were easily abused for the sort of indoctrination no one would want for their children...
Presumably, college kids would be (newly minted) adults, and theoretically less susceptible to indoctrination. At least, that's the lie I'll tell myself when I start day-drinking here in 10 minutes. Made it almost all the way to lunch.
> All this brings us to the project I run: Enquo. It takes application-layer encryption to a new level, by providing a language- and framework-agnostic cryptosystem that also enables encrypted data to be efficiently queried by the database.
If you want people to use this, don't bury the lede.
Is this a problem worth solving? How does aws/gcp/azure solve for this?
> Is this a problem worth solving? How does aws/gcp/azure solve for this?
Yes. I had to build something very similar, and neither GCP nor AWS "solve" this at all. They provide good building block to solve it, like KMS and tools for envelope
encryption (e.g. https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/postgres/client-side-encry...), but importantly if you want to search on this encrypted data you need to role your own with something like blind indexes (the linked project explains some of the problems with that), and even harder is if you need to sort by that data, which this Enquo project also addresses.
There are a bunch of "PII vaulting services", companies like Very Good Security, that provide similar solutions, but it would be ideal to have this all securely encrypted in the DB if you're already using Postgres.
First, you complain that the person started by explaining the current state of the art and why a better solution is needed ("don't bury the lede").
Second you wonder if the problem is worth solving and what the current state of the art is, which is exactly what the text you're complaining about answered clearly.
I'm personally quite happy with how they formatted this blogpost.
I know deployments which chosen Oracle because Oracle supports encryption and Postgres does not. They don't really care about encryption, but they need to check a mark for compliance.
Noticed this as well. I've gotten so frustrated with poor results for things I need, I've been using "Verbatim" mode to force Google to stop interpreting my terms. This was a pain, so ended up installing an extension that forces verbatim on every search.
Recently, I searched "(-)-BPAP" -- with the quotes -- looking for the chemical benzofuranylpropylaminopentane, which is typically referred to as (-)-BPAP. EVERY result was for a BiPAP ventilator.
So I tried verbatim. It still didn't work.
Verbatim + quotation marks. Still nothing.
I guess New Google Search simply doesn't recognize the "(-)-" part of the search term. But this is characteristic of its recent performance. I can't even count the number of times Google disregarded part of my search term and gave me an inane result.
> Google Search simply doesn't recognize the "(-)-" part of the search term.
AFAIK, Google search has always ignored parentheses and most punctuation symbols (other than ones that are special to it, like +require_term -exclude_term "...")
My luxury belief is that AI Safety is a joke, but it's a dangerous belief as the benefits of AI will not be equally distributed and biasing towards caution could reduce future suffering. So...
Be cautious reading comments here as many of us are in the socioeconomic class
that luxury beliefs appeal to.
I think the grandparent comment was talking about making AI Force a separate military branch, rather than a joint office under DoD.
Not arguing one way or another myself, I think it makes sense for it, at least for now, to be a joint office under DoD (like it currently is, according to your link). Just wanted to make it clear that CDAO is probably not what the grandparent poster had in mind when they made that comment.
