The quotes are because "AI" doesn't exist. There are many programs and algorithms being used in a variety of way. But none of them are "intelligent".
And this is where you show your ignorance. You're using the colloquial definition for intelligence and applying incorrectly.
By definition, a worm has intelligence. The academic, or biological, definition of intelligence is the ability to make decisions based on a set of available information. It doesn't mean that something is "smart", which is how you're using it.
"Artificial Intelligence" is a specific definition we typically apply to an algorithm that's been modelled after the real world structure and behaviour of neurons and how they process signals. We take large amounts of data to train it and it "learns" and "remembers" those specific things. Then when we ask it to process new data it can make an "intelligent" decision on what comes next. That's how you use the word correctly.
The only time I've ever really had issues with Nvidia drivers is when installing the meta package for CUDA (because it tends to include a previous version of the driver, which causes install/uninstall havok), or with laptops and hybrid graphics.
But the laptop issue is almost completely gone with newer distros like Bazzite.
Remember when they ran ads suggesting that if independent mechanics had access to the car's software that it would result in stalking and assault? Remember when they said the only way to keep people safe is to protect that data by only using "qualified" mechanic shops (aka dealers)?
Turns out all of that was a lie. Total shocker, I know.
The legal term is: unauthorized access to a computer system.
No, the legal definition is this:
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
So this wasn't illicit, because the FBI publicly published the data. So the argument has to be made with "unconventional". This is what I disagree on.
Think about it in any other way? So I'm just walking down the street... I see a house.. I go open a door.. I open the fridge. Make myself a sandwich. Then go to a bedroom that's not mine. Put on some underwear that isn't mine and leave some stains on the sheets...
That's illegal. There's a law for that. There are also laws that protect digital assets in a similar way, and they fall under Cybercrime.
Why don't you just go rape somebody? And clearly you have authorization to access that vagina or that butthole or mouth or however your fetish desires???
Calm down there, Epstein.
Just tell me you've been on Epstein's Island.... Jfc? Wtf is wrong with you, CeeBee_Eh?
You suck at rage baiting. I'm advocating for exposing more of the emails and not letting people refer to it as "hacking", and you're so enraged by someone disagreeing with you that you literally call that person "Epstein". I know mental health care isn't much of a thing in the US, but please find some help. For all our sakes.
Look, I'm not arguing about whether this is illegal or not. I'm arguing about the literal definition of the term "hacking".
It's just like walking into a strangers house without permission where the door is wide open is technically illegal, but it can't qualify as "breaking and entering".
In a legal context, hacking is a term for utilizing an unconventional or illicit means to gain unauthorized access to a digital device, computer system, or network.
We can rule out "illicit" because the FBI published the data publicly. Now the heavy lifting has to be done by "unconventional", which I don't think qualifies here. A government agency published the credentials, which means no one had to do social engineering, sneak into an office, reverse engineer anything, or even guess a person's birthday.
Now if this somehow went to court, a judge might rule that this qualifies as hacking, but my opinion is that it doesn't.
The base legal definition of "hacking" is "unauthorized access". Then the trick becomes establishing "unauthorized". The reason this matters is if a website is publicly accessible, then it's assumed to be authorized even though it's not explicitly stated by anyone. However, you are accessing information on a computer system you do not own and were not given explicit permission to access.
Now let's say in the HTML or JS there's an endpoint to a backend server that's not directly exposed via online searches or page links. And through that link you are able to expose sensitive data that's not shown on the webpage.
Now, how is the definition of "unauthorized access" or "hacking" applied here?
Edit: yes this is splitting atoms, but that's the world of legal definitions
So your claim is that if I sit down at a computer that isn't mine and has no security measures in place, and then open a file, that I have legally "hacked" the computer?
The minimal definition you can fall back to is "unauthorized access". But now you have to establish and argue that an unsecured computer/system is off limits to everyone except the owner. Which then opens up a big can of worms with network connected devices, and demonstrates that such basic and literal verbatim interpretation doesn't work in reality.
None until there's a solid and extensively proven track record of reliable and non-exploding batteries from Chinese makers.
Edit: video explaining concern for reference
https://youtu.be/-Y23nfAOiXQ