This is a really great use of LLM! Seriously great job! Once it’s fully self-hostable (including the LLM model), I will absolutely find it space on the home server. Maybe using Rupeshs fastdcpu as the model and generation backend could work. I don’t remember what his license is, though.

Edit: added link.

I agree with you. I just think “they” will take that fact and just sit with it. I think “they” will do everything they can to get multiple backdoors in there (and I use the term ‘backdoor’ loosely to mean anything that can programmatically circumvent the encryption). There are more of them, in terms of power and funding, than there are of us. They will eventually succeed, if only for short times each interval. That’s why I wrote that the solution is a chat revolution. I don’t know what that will look like, but we need something they can’t successfully attack.

Theoretically, yes. But if it’s a legal entity that added it, they can easily circumvent any attempt to eradicate it. Or, in a more extreme way, criminalize FOSS chat apps altogether, then the code will have to be analyzed in a RE environment. Maybe the non FOSS server code is where the backdoor is added. There are so many relatively hidden ways to compromise a chat app’s supply chain.

Honestly, neither will I. No one should.

While I do love your optimism and appreciate the addition of this software to our (collective) arsenal, it absolutely can. Chat Control can force the developers to add back doors, for example, or to start log collection to include IPs and PSPs, etc. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not negating the benefits of Amnesichat at all. It’s awesome. But, being a chat, it would still fall under the same regulatory nonsense as Briar, for example, which can also be run through Tor. Now, whether the developers adhere to Chat Control regulations, is another thing altogether.

Or Briar. Or Signal. Or so many others that have been audited throughput the years. While I appreciate the addition of Amnesichat to this arsenal, it has yet to be properly audited and is, therefore, not yet trusted.

Chat Control, if passed, will affect this chat as well. The only way to bypass it, would be chat revolution.

str 86;

str itmTo86;

86='get rid of';

info(strFmt('%1 %2',86,itmTo86));

(This won’t actually work, since you can’t assign ints as variables, but whatever. It was fun)

I have never heard of either 86 nor this speakeasy. What a cool thing to learn! Thanks for sharing this historic nugget!

Edit, autocorrect on grammar

This is a very interesting use of this tech, as a countermeasure to the corpos’ use of it. I appreciate the share!

Very cool. Thanks for sharing!

Ah, you meant phone of the time. I thought you meant phones throughout time. Like, today’s Pixel 9 compared to the N95. That sort of thing.

Yeah, you’re right. Back then, it was all marketing and storefront locks. That’s it.

And the flagship iphone of today is lower specs than its direct android competitor. But, then again, that’s how apple seems to operate: lowest possible specs, highest possible marketing, beautiful (debatable, I know) UI… and locked storefront.

I thought I read that somewhere, many years before this study “just” discovered it. Shoot, I’ve been using that knowledge as a coping mechanism for at least a decade lol

It’s also better specs that some software and security processes require, but yeah, it’s mostly marketing and it sucks.

No lol I just channeled my inner 90s hahahaa

[email protected]

I almost got the N95 back in the day, bit it didn’t work with my provider. This project is hella wicked

And this tax needs to increase 25% every 6 months until it’s no longer empty.

That’s a fair point.