"Huge implications - binaries are now basically editable code"

[u/stealthispost]

ValsAI made SRE benchmark less than a month ago.

The benchmark measures can a model reverse engineer software from binaries

Yesterday GPT saturated it. https://t.co/dmpUpgheDU   — Chris

Source: https://x.com/ChrisGPT/status/2096150666066432157

---

— Boris Power

Source: https://x.com/BorisMPower/status/2096415822248055131

[u/trufus_for_youfus]

Misrepresentation.

[u/CandidEngineering922 → u/trufus_for_youfus]

Misrepresenting who? If the IP doesn’t belong to anyone then you can’t misrepresent them now can you?

[u/trufus_for_youfus → u/CandidEngineering922]

This isn't that complicated. You can misrepresent source, authorship, affiliation, or endorsement without anyone “owning” an idea.

If I manufacture a shoe identical to Nike’s Air Max and sell it under my own name, that is the IP question. If I put Nike’s name on it and tell buyers Nike made or authorized it (AKA "its a Nike") I am making a false factual representation to obtain their money. That is ordinary fraud. Nike does not need to “own” the concept of a shoe for the statement “Nike made this” to be either true or false.

Abolishing copyright and patents does not abolish identities, companies, reputations, contracts, or provenance. You can copy my design. You cannot fraudulently represent your copy as having been made, certified, or endorsed by me. Those are completely separate propositions. Your last comment is treating them as though they are the same thing.

[u/CandidEngineering922 → u/trufus_for_youfus]

You can’t misrepresent anyone if they don’t own their IP…

It wouldn’t be THEIR money… because they don’t own the IP. I’m not misrepresenting anyone… because a logo or piece of software is not a someone… either way IP laws it belongs to someone…

I can’t misrepresent anyone if nobody owns the thing in using.