I think you missed the part where it said “[…] cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill.” I.e. either the printer will only allow flashing with signed firmware containing the detection algorithms, or it would have to be done by a separate chip which isn’t affected by flashing firmwares.
But also detecting firearms in gcode is a ridiculously complex task, and if companies actually try to comply they might opt for building the algorithms into their closed source slicer instead, and then only allowing their printer to print encrypted/signed gcode. Or they might do the analysis using some AI algorithm on their cloud servers, requiring an always on internet connection to print things. It might be tempting to think that nobody would buy a printer like that, but I think that enough people will do if they make it convenient and cheap enough.
Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
There is no algorithm for that. That’s just technobabble. In order to detect if somebody is trying to print any specific shape you’re going to need software that can look for that shape in an arbitrary cloud of point data. That software does not exist.
No one has developed that kind of software and in order to develop it would require a tremendous amount of research and development. Who pays for that?
Now let’s say you were the company who did that research and development Do you build the cost of developing this anti-product into a line of products that you will sell? What’s the market for that product? If you sold the printer with no chip at all are you exempt from that requirement?
Will a device that has to include the additional cost that comes with all of the additional needed computer hardware, software development, and anticircumvention technology be in any way competitive on the market against models that don’t include these additional unnecessary expenses?
How long will people be allowed to make aftermarket modifications to their 3D printer if the aftermarket modifications don’t also include the additional computer hardware needed to run software that could arbitrarily detect gun parts in 3D printed designs?
I don’t think you understand how completely insane and unworkable a plan like this is because you’re comparing 3D printers to 2D printers. That’s a little bit like comparing paint by numbers to scratch and sniff.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There’s a much simpler and more horrifying solution here, that would actually be technically possible. All 3D printers sold must have a sort of cryptographic lock on them. Only safety-verified prints are allowed to be printed on them. The code running on the printers themselves will still be dirt stupid, but there will be a software lock on the thing preventing uncertified prints from being printed. Every 3D printer sold is locked down tighter than a John Deere tractor.
Every 3D print company would offer a large number of pre-verified prints. (AFAIK many already have libraries of print files.) But you as a user wouldn’t be able to just print anything you wanted. At best, maybe 3rd-party verification services would exist. Model what you want, then pay 20 bucks to some company for a print verification. You send them the file, they screen it for any contraband, and they send you a cryptographic key that lets you print that file and only that file. Long term they would hope AI can do the screening. For now it will be someone’s job to just stare at 3D models all day and to figure out if it’s a gun or not. It would start with screening for guns, but it would inevitably expand to things like intellectual property protections.
They won’t have to change the fundamental deep logic and operation of the printer itself. Just like the fundamental mechanisms inside a tractor haven’t changed. They’ll just make it a felony to sell a 3D printer that isn’t locked down to Hell and back.