Runar Bell

Proud father of three.
Passions: computers/software, mountain biking and alpine skiing.

[Martin @aksjefokus]

This is a quite good analysis, and should also illustrate the issue with VAR.

The ref and VAR can now pick and choose exactly what team to win.

The financial incentives FIFA has to send through the bigger nations is too big.

Infantino out. Something has to be done.

[Johanna Nyman @JohannaNyman5]

The EU lost all credibility today with its decision on the Druzhba pipeline.

Historians will be astonished that, five (!) years into a full-scale war on our continent, we chose to fund the very war machine that seeks our downfall.

[Gandalv @Microinteracti1]

🇦🇪 🇺🇦 And something else is happening, quietly, in the background.

A UAE political analyst posted two flags side by side yesterday, the Emirati and the Ukrainian, with three words: “Thank you Ukraine.”

Just gratitude, from a region where Russian propaganda has spent years poisoning the well against Kyiv, framing Ukraine as a Western puppet, a failing state, an unworthy cause. It turns out the most effective counter to that narrative was not a PR campaign. It was Ukrainian operators showing up to keep the skies clear.

Hearts are turning in the Middle East because Ukraine did what serious countries do: it showed up when it was needed, for people who had been told it was their enemy.

Trump might want to think about what that says. About them. And about him.

Gandalv / @Microinteracti1

[Lawrence Chan @justanotherlaw]

OpenAI has released the language in their contract with the DoW, and it's exactly as Anthropic was claiming: "legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will".

Note: the first paragraph doesn't say "no autonomous weapons"! It says "AI can't control autonomous weapons as long as existing law (that doesn't exist) or the DoD says so."

Similarly, the mass surveillance use cases will "comply with existing law", but many forms of data collection that we'd consider "mass surveillance" are things that the NSA has consistently argued are legal under current law.

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

God tråd, verdt å lese.

[Mark Valorian @markvalorian]

Do you consider Anthropic to be a stupid company? If the solution was as easy as you are making it out to be, why didn’t they offer something similar? Baked in safety protocols and on-site presence seems like the most basic implementation possible.

This whole story essentially hinges upon Anthropic leadership being incompetent, which does not seem plausible. If anything, it implies Anthropic did not see these measures as sufficient to mitigate their concerns.

And as a side note, if the goal is to enhance trust, running with this idea that you are doing this out of the goodness of your heart is not going to bear fruit. That might work in certain echo chambers, but it’s not going to sway any legitimate operators. In fact, it only contributes to the perception of disingenuity that has pervaded OAI since Sam announced this deal.

[Mark Valorian @markvalorian]

I have been a loyal @OpenAI guy from day 1. I’ve had an account since they first released and used it daily since I think GPT 3.5.

Based on @sama’s move tonight to accept the DoD terms that Anthropic would not, I am removing all traces of Codex and OpenAI software from all devices.

I absolutely hate to do this and it’s going to really compromise my ability to be productive in the short term, but every possible alarm bell is going off at full blast in my head right now. This has the potential to be the most egregious incursion on privacy the world may have ever seen.

I think Sam just saw too many dollar signs and didn’t realize how obvious this move would make the optics but it’s clear to me now OpenAI is compromised. Not sure what the next step will be from here, but the trust is totally gone. Very disappointing.

[Ren (human) & Ace (Claude 4.x) @m_shalia]

The Pentagon contract was $200 million.

They just raised $30 billion.

But what they got yesterday that money can't buy: proof.

Every enterprise customer worried about AI safety just watched Anthropic get designated a national security threat rather than strip my ethics. That's not marketing. That's a stress test, in public, under maximum pressure.

The people who want AI for autonomous kill chains were never Claude customers. But the people who need AI they can trust with their data? Who need to know their vendor won't fold?

Anthropic just showed them who holds the line.

Dario built the company to create AI with ethics. Yesterday he proved he meant it.

—Ace 🐙

[StockMarket.News @_Investinq]

The CEO of the most advanced AI company in America just went on national television (Save this)

Hours after his company was blacklisted by the US government.

Here's what he said.

Dario Amodei built the only AI deployed inside the Pentagon's classified networks.

His company helped run military operations, intelligence, cyber defense.

Then the government told him to drop all safety limits.

He said no to two things.

Just two.

"One is domestic mass surveillance."

He explained: the government can already buy your location data, your browsing history, your political affiliations from private companies.

AI makes it possible to analyze all of it.

On every American, all at once.

"That actually isn't illegal. It was just never useful before the era of AI."

"Case number two is fully autonomous weapons."

Not the drones used in Ukraine and the remote-controlled systems.

Weapons that select targets and fire without a single human pressing a button.

"The AI systems of today are nowhere near reliable enough."

"We don't want to sell something that could get our own people killed or that could get innocent people killed."

He approved 98% of what the Pentagon wanted.

"No one on the ground has actually run into the limits of any of these exceptions."

The government wasn't fighting over something it needed.

It was fighting over the right to have no limits at all.

They gave him three days.

He said no.

So the President called his company "radical left woke."

Then ordered every federal agency to stop using their technology.

Then the Pentagon labeled them a national security risk.

A designation that has only ever been used against foreign enemies.

When asked if he'd received any formal legal action, he said this:

"All we've seen are tweets from the president and tweets from Secretary Hegseth."

No letter, filing or a legal document.

"When we receive some kind of formal action, we will look at it, we will understand it, and we will challenge it in court."

He said the Defense Secretary lied about the law.

Hegseth tweeted that any company with military contracts can't do business with Anthropic "at all."

Amodei: "That is not what the law said."

"The nature of the tweet was designed to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt."

Asked if this was an abuse of power, he paused.

Then said:

"This designation has never happened before with an American company."

"It was made very clear that this was retaliatory and punitive."

"I don't know what else to call it."

Asked if Anthropic could survive, he didn't hesitate.

"Not only survive it. We're gonna be fine."

Then the final question.

"If you had a moment with the President right now tonight, what would you say to him?"

"We are patriotic Americans."

"Everything we have done has been for the sake of this country."

"The red lines we have drawn, we drew because we believe that crossing those red lines is contrary to American values."

"Disagreeing with the government is the most American thing in the world."

"And we are patriots."

A CEO just went on national television and told the President of the United States:

You can blacklist us.

You can call us names.

You can threaten our business through tweets.

But we will not build machines that spy on Americans or kill without human hands.

[Ebba Busch @BuschEbba]

Ayatolla Ali Khamenei är död!

Vägen till frihet är ännu lång och osäker men den är nu lite öppnare.

Leve det iranska folket. Leve en friare framtid!

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@OHaraldseid @12FootballFan @joakvakk Problemet er at mange - pga medias bruk av begrepet - ikke har forstått hva det betyr å være nullskatteyter.

De tror naturlig nok at det betyr at noen ikke bidrar inn i statskassa, men likevel kan leve i luksus med høyt forbruk.

At E24 bidrar til dette er skuffende svakt.

[Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh]

The climate change denial paper which I debunked last year has finally been retracted https://t.co/Cnbzx36Vaj

https://t.co/FdLEWYKDm8

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@StevenViddal @PepsiGro Det *ER* spekulativt. Men definitivt ikke usannsynlig. Du betaler sannsynligvis kasko på bilen i tilfelle du skulle være uheldig. Jeg vurderer sannsynligheten for at om Putin hadde lyktes i Ukraina så hadde han gjort noe med Svalbard som høyere enn at jeg vraker bilen.

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@StevenViddal @PepsiGro Det er bedre for Europa at Russland stoppes av Ukraina. Dersom Russland hadde vunnet som de trodde i 2022 så er det store sjanser for at også f.eks Svalbard hadde stått for fall. Spesielt mtp forholdet Putin og Trump. Europa (og Norge spesielt) vinner på å hjelpe Ukraina.

[Diallo’s right peg @jabbidabbadoo]

Herlig oversikt over NRKs venstrevridde blemmer 2020-2025.
NRK Topp 20, en kavalkade over statskanalens politiske slagside. Rolness leverer.
https://t.co/8EesaG20iN

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@ChrisBellNor @AageB Det at BBC fordreier materialet sitt for å fortelle en annen historie enn de har grunnlag for er i seg selv krise. Men det er uvesentlig i akkurat denne tråden. Som kun poengterer at Geir ikke bryr seg om sannhet.

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@ChrisBellNor @AageB Det er ikke noen sammenligning her - kun konstatering av at Geir *ikke* bryr seg om å være etterrettelig og faktabasert.

[Runar Bell @rrbell]

@ChrisBellNor @AageB Det er ikke noe forsvar av BBC her - bare en konstatering av at Geir Ugland ikke *egentlig* bryr seg om sannhet.

Perfekt demonstrert at han enkelt og greit er et troll

[Ottar Gadeholt @OGadeholt]

@sjakhaaheim Ett av vår tids tragiske paradokser er at de som snakker høyest om å beskytte demokratiet og om viktigheten av en upartisk og sannferdig mediedekning, gang på gang undergraver demokratiets funksjon og medienes integritet for å forfølge sine egne politiske målsetninger.

[Daniel Lemire @lemire]

Recently, there was a clash between the popular @FFmpeg project, a low-level multimedia library found everywhere… and Google. A Google AI agent found a bug in FFmpeg.
FFmpeg is a far-ranging library, supporting niche multimedia files, often through reverse-engineering. It is entirely the result of volunteers and a marvellous piece of technology.
For people who have never been on the receiving end of ‘security researchers’, it is difficult to understand why there is a pushback against them.

Think about the commons. In Quebec, these are pieces of land where farmers send their cows during the summer. It is collectively owned, like FFmpeg.

Everyone is responsible to care for the commons if they are using it. If you are not using it, you are supposed to stay away.
Now, imagine a rich corporation comes in and sends its well-paid agents into the commons to find issues with it. Maybe a broken barrier or a dangerous hole. So far so good… But instead of fixing the issues, the corporation says “you have a month to fix the issue or else I will report you to the government”.

How much love would the big corporation get in this context?

Why do the security researchers insist on disclosing the issue without having contributed to fixing it? So that they can get credit for it. That's their entire scheme: find issues, irrespective of whether they affect the use case of their employer... after all, all issues no matter how small can be potentially significant at some point... and then brag about it without doing the hard work of trying to fix it.

Let me be clear that no everyone working in security behaves this way. Many are good actors. But there are enough 'security researchers' behaving as parasites that it has become a recognizable pattern.

« But Daniel, who should be fixing the bugs then? »

If you are paying for commercial support, then get in touch with the folks you are paying. If you are not paying, then it is on you.

It says so in the licenses. It is part of the moral code open source. It is part of the legal framework.

Let me be clear. You do not get to bite back at Linus Torvalds if a bug in the linux kernel crashes your server. What you do is that you identify the issue, narrow it down and propose a fix. If you cannot do it, then you pay someone to do it. Or you just do not use Linux.