| ▲ | userbinator 4 hours ago |
| One character: a plain compare loop. Correct. Not surprisingly, I get slight hints of Claudism in the text. AI "opening" the source of software is one of the best things I've seen going for it so far. |
|
| ▲ | stuaxo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Given they don't have the code, I think it's fair enough here.
Sounds like with it, it would have been much easier to find. |
|
| ▲ | p0w3n3d 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trusted Platform Computing in 3... 2... 1... |
| |
| ▲ | microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We are already there and it is called Play Integrity (meets STRONG integrity) and Google is trying to get apps to use it to shut out competitors. They are succeeding to some extend (see the Volkswagen and IKEA Smart Home apps as recent successes for Google). Google should not be allowed to abuse its duopoly position in this way. I recommend EU citizens to report every case they are (potentially) affected by to the EU DMA team. | | |
| ▲ | alerighi 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think that the EU shall render this practice (and the equivalent from Apple) illegal, stating that every citizen has a right to modify their own device without consequences, and that consequences shall include also having apps not working. But to me big tech succeeded also lobbying the EU like they already did in the US, in fact they violate multiple EU rules (GDPR, etc.) without facing any consequence, and when they try to announce they would do something at the other side of the ocean they treat us that they will double or triple tariffs so... | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > stating that every citizen has a right to modify their own device without consequences, and that consequences shall include also having apps not working. iOS being so difficult to jailbreak means that most apps don't have any verification at all. Even most DRM doesn't even try to verify that the device isn't jailbroken in order to access the highest resolutions or whatever. But if we ever add a first-party option for the device to be modified, then we start running into the Android situation where every app has some invasive root/tamper detection thing. Some apps already have anti-debugging things, but the situation on iOS could be far, far worse. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mrheosuper 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If AI is good enough to find RCE in google code, maybe it can crack TPM | |
| ▲ | RealityVoid 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This ideea haunts me in my nightmares. | | |
| ▲ | zekica 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trusted computing is fine and even good only if the owner (the person/company that bought the device) is in control, but it's not the world we live in. | | |
| ▲ | nananana9 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > owner (the person/company that bought the device) At this point I'm willing to argue that the owner of a device is whoever is legally allowed to log in as root. When I pay for server colocation, I'm the owner - and not whoever runs the building - because I decide what runs on the box, and if they tamper with it they can go to jail. With phones it's the same, except that you pay Google for the privilege for keeping their device safe, charged, connected to the Internet, and walking it around every day with you, so they can collect better data. The only thing they can't do is snatch it from your hands, but why would they - you're doing so much useful work for them. And of course if you try to root it, you're breaking a digital lock, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $1,000,000, so the colocation analogy holds there too. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It could slow down progress. Who beside the open source community develops new features if they can be easily copied? |
| |
| ▲ | kadoban 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is your theory really that closed source software will just stop being developed? I can't find another way to read that, but you can't think Google is just going to give up and shut down, right? | | |
| ▲ | michaelt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "AI is going to lead to much less software being written" said no-one ever :) | |
| ▲ | croes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Closed software publicly available.
Internal closed software, sure. But why invest time and money when your features get copied as soon as you publish it? | | |
| ▲ | kadoban 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But why invest time and money when your features get copied as soon as you publish it? Because you still get money? Nothing about getting copied means you don't still get money. It probably just means your legal team has some people to annoy into going away if you're a big company. |
| |
| ▲ | msy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Look at spaces where ripoffs/copying are already rampant like mobile games. The result is a slop avalanche, rending the whole space commercially unviable for anything other than the most bottom-of-the-barrel dark-pattern shitware laden with scam ads and spyware because users don't care and won't pay. That may well be the future for most commercial software (and software engineers) as margins collapse and AI tokenomics moves more power from labor to capital. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AI's pretty good at copying features even when it's closed, or online. Not perfect, of course. All that hype about the vibe-cloned Adobe suite is, today, hype. Next year it might not be, though that depends on questions like "will investment bubble pop?" etc. But we are at a level where, if you can describe a feature or process well enough to test it, an LLM can develop and optimise for that feature/process. That creates opportunities for businesses to have custom just-for-them business software, which nobody copies because nobody outside the business even bothers to learn exist. | |
| ▲ | tancop 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You think open source never develops new features? The only thing that made commercial software more innovative is most developers never had time to build and maintain a big open source project without support from their job. Now we have agents and it takes a lot less time to implement your ideas. That means slop filling up GitHub, but also that people who came up with good new features can make them real in their free time. ReSkate is a good example, it's a project 90% coded by AI but the people working on it are passionate and most of them are experienced game modders. They know what made the old Skate games special and wanted to bring it back to the new one. Now it's better than vanilla Skate 4 and has tons of new features never seen in the OG trilogy. That project would never be possible without Claude taking care of the hard and boring RE work. | | |
| ▲ | croes 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Who beside the open source community develops new features if they can be easily copied? But I guess they will also think twice if big companies can rip off the software with clean room AI implementation to circumvent the open source licenses |
| |
| ▲ | mrheosuper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why use proprietary software when there is opensource one ? | | |
|
