asadotzler

A company that distills LLMs should be called "Moonshine" not "Moonshot"

Ba-dum-tss

s/announcement/claim

You don't get to call Moonshot's a "claim" and this political hack's an "announcement." They're the same thing. Treat them the same. Diction designed to favor one of two equal positions is some weak sauce.

Not to mention the cases where the AI labs would have lost in court so bailed and settled for billions. Just this week, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5B in a settlement to avoid losing a pretty cut and dry case.

What precedents can you cite and specific examples of their applicability. That is, what would Anthropic's lawyers take to court? You can't say because there's nothing there that couldn't be ripped apart by the least legally capable community known to man, HN. That's why no lab has succeeded in a suit anything like what you're claiming could happen. The only reason Anthropic or any other lab would pursue this is political or commercial. They're either looking for help from officials or they're trying to establish a particular market position.

The baker stole 100% of the flour to make the bread. He also stole the water and the salt and the yeast and the heat for his oven. What he didn't steal was the time he put into crafting a recipe for bread and the time he sat around waiting for the oven to bake it. Now, is that loaf stolen property? Hard to say. But the baker is undoubtedly a thief. He should be tried and forced to pay restitution out of his ill-gotten profits for sure. If we can't do that, the next step is pitchforks and guillotines.

OpenAI says they're not just distillation. "Some observations on Kimi: 1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that."

If you put any faith in claims made by OpenAI's "Head of Strategic Futures," then it's hard to believe these models are just the result of distillation.

The US subsidized its EV industry with about $120B over the last 15 years, and that's what they gave out despite congress expecting $300B in their reporting just a few years ago. So, it's not like China threw hundreds of billions at EVs while the US left it all to GM and Ford to solve.

The upfront costs are actually a lot higher, but still absolutely trivial in the big picture. OpenAI pulled in $120,000,000,000 in one round of fundraising and they're closing in on $200,000,000,000 total. Even at 1 billion dollars, new frontier model training is only 0.5% of what they've raised.

OpenAI said it: "I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation"

They know it's real effort that's doing this well, not just "copying off someone else's test." It's real and they will react. How is the big question.

Webkit started as a fork of KDE's KHTML and KJS. It makes good sense.

When a vendor bundles their own code with Webkit, it's quite easy for that vendor's code to have it's own security vulnerabilities, yes commonly in the UI, but also to open security vulnerabilities in Webkit. There's also no telling how much they've modified Webkit itself to make the rest of their code work. You simply cannot trust it and there are many security failure modes here. If you cannot inspect it all, you are trusting the vendor and I would be very careful trusting un-tested vendors of the most complex programs ever written which hold your credit cards and all of your logins probably your bank as well. I damn well would not trust the first few versions before the white hats have had a few years poking at it.

Launches are not $74M. That's retail pricing.

SpaceX's launch cost, the internal spend to put one Falcon 9 Starlink payload in orbit, with a return to launch site booster recovery, is about $15M.

If you're going to make such assertions, do the legwork to make sure your numerical claims aren't off by 500%.

5 years is a Starlink's typical lifetime. Data center satellite lifetimes will probably be shorter. Demise sooner, replace more often. GPUs get more energy efficient every year and leaving the slower, hungrier chips up there much longer than 3 years seems wasteful given the cheap cost of launch.

I think this could be done at an interesting scale even on Falcon 9 alone. If Starship does even 20% of its early design goals, it'll beat Falcon 9 and we could see orbital servers being demised and replaced every 3 years, maybe even 2, for ones with abnormally high failure rates.

Now, whether or not this will all make money in the end has a lot to do with what's going on down here on terra firma and how long it takes to get useful capacity into orbit.

(It's taken 7 years to get Starlink capacity enough for serving 10M customers. Verizon FiOS did 10M in 5 years. AT&T Fiber took 4-5 years to deploy to 10M. So, space isn't a lot slower than terrestrial.)

Apple doesn't engage in that behavior against other companies? Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain?

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. (1988–1994) -- Apple lost its ass on this one, entirely frivolous. Every single major claim failed.

Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp. (2010–2012) -- Apple patents wiped out over frivolity

Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (2010–2014) -- Mutually destructive patent fight, Apple's loss

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2011–2018) -- Pretty suspect. Lawyers still undecided

Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. (2017–2019) -- Apple settled, needed QC modems more than a win

Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (2020–present) -- Apple was ordered to stop anti-steering rules, won little

Look, Apple sued Samsung over the corner radius on piece of hardware. It's currently suing a YouTuber for publishing renders of pre-release iOS.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg for Apple suits, many pretty unconvincing. Here are a few more.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1982–1983) Apple Computer, Inc. v. Apple Corps Ltd. (1978–2007) Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation (2008–2011) Apple Inc. v. Corellium, LLC (2019–2023) Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd. (2021–present) Apple Inc. v. Rivos Inc. (2022–2025) Apple Inc. v. Andrew Aude (2024–2025)

So don't tell us Apple doesn't abuse the legal system for business gain. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that it regularly does so.

It's not scary. I received one of these letters for the DOJ vs Microsoft trial while working at Netscape and it was less scary opening it than the email from my cube mate titled "you won't believe it."

The lawyers told us ahead of time we'd be getting the letters. They told us what we needed to preserve and what we could comfortably trash. There was never any follow-up or specific requests for what I had on my machines. That was that.

The idea that getting a legal request is scary is silly. We were employees getting employee guidance from our employer on what to do at every step of the way. We weren't individuals fending for ourselves, wondering about getting something wrong, being taken in for questioning. We were doing what we always do, work hard and listen to the company lawyers if they have something to say.

For the near future it seems that the new models will consume whatever improved hardware capacity we have.

But they're not. Meta, SpaceX, Microsoft, Amazon, they're all leasing out capacity to others. If they were truly constrained, we wouldn't see that happening.

Windows and Mac have billions of users.

Adults are supposed to have acquired enough life experience to make more reasonable decisions than children.

Having said that, we also expect adults to make all kinds of bad decisions so they too are prohibited from many things, like shooting smack or freebasing meth.

I think there's a good case to be made not for banning kids from social media, but for banning everyone. In that case, it'd be easier to do it from the supply side than the demand side.

Let's bring back child labor and asbestos and leaded gasoline and banks discriminating against women and all manner of businesses discriminating against Blacks, because banning those was terrible and should never have been done.

Banning anything is always bad. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

In fact, it would almost certainly encourage them to keep you engaged even longer in an attempt to make up some of the money lost with the end of targeted advertising.

They may just want to cow workers a bit more. This would be par for the course in Silicon Valley, keep workers scared and suppress wages however possible.

Most people who depend on screen readers prefer the synthetic voices for their consistency which can allow them "read" at far faster speeds. I've been working for a couple of years to reach the speed one of my friend regularly works at, about 900 WPM. I topped out around 550 WPM with the human-sounding voices and then almost immediately got to 650 moving to a synthetic voices. Still a long way to go to hit 900, but I'm certain it's possible, and nearly certain it's impossible with text that's voiced to sound human-like.

Sony is deleting 551 movies from customer accounts, movies those customers paid for. Nothing digital is ever truly yours. They can and absolutely do take things away after advertising them at sale. This is actually quite common.

These are delicate layers that are highly affected by nano particles

s/are/may be/

The US and Russia have been sharing the ISS for decades. If you can't get past your xenophobia enough to see that there's massive cooperation between the US and Russia in space and has been for probably longer than you've been alive.

You don't always have to be the best. All you need is good enough long enough for the best to falter. See Anthropic's latest troubles.

Perhaps the answer is to depend only on packages that come from people that are more competent than you so you can know if or when your program is compromised that it'll most likely be your fault and not theirs.

150 years ago, Bayer Inc. was mass producing Heroine. 130 years ago Merck and Parke-Davis were mass producing Cocaine(TM) -- all with zero oversight. It would be another 50 years before we even had an FDA and another 50 before the FDA was a reasonably well-oiled machine with a solid set of processes and requirements. Even then, it couldn't really (and can't really today either) prevent these non-US companies (both Heroine and Cocaine were German) from making and selling elsewhere.

s/50/250

This was generated by AI and slightly re-written or end capped by a human. Anyone that knows who Meituan and Boss Zhipin are wouldn't make the claims this post makes. It's not reasonable that someone who could list off these companies and incidents would believe China's tech industry is in ruin. There's no way. This poster clearly promoted for the list, and wrote his commentary around it. Sad.