avazhi

And?

Nobody cares. This is neither a controversy nor news, and that would be the case even if Anthropic hadn’t just settled a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit where they trained Claude on thousands of books without permission lol.

To be clear I’m not taking a jab at OP - I’m saying the labs crying about distillation have neither a legal nor a moral leg to stand on. There’s nothing wrong with distillation.

That’s not what frontier means.

There are two frontier labs - OpenAI and Anthropic, and maybe 4 frontier models currently. That term refers to model capacity and in general represents a model’s capability relative to the rest of the industry irrespective of price. That’s why even the Qwen announcement carries language about it being ‘near frontier’. Same with Kimi.

Whether a model is frontier or not has everything to do with capability and nothing to do with price.

Surveillance no, but potentially being banned, yes. Reddit is Exhibit A for this for me when I think about how I used to use it versus how I use it today. I wish Musk was actually serious about that whole free speech absolutist shit because the straight jacket gets tighter every day on every platform.

The irony of this article that was originally posted completely free on The Conversation being stuck behind a Fortune paywall is a bit much.

https://theconversation.com/when-can-a-power-company-take-yo...

If what you are saying were true, I could rank anything high by simply putting everything actually higher than it in rank into one named set and then turn around and say that the thing I want to highly rank comes in 2nd only to that first set of n items.

I'll come back to this - it's been awhile since I studied it and a cursory examination of my old notes has me spotting some misconceptions on my part as expressed here; at the very least I could have expressed myself better in both posts.

the goal of this particular section were to maximize what authors and inventors can extract from their creations then explicitly assigning to them the property rights in perpetuity of said creations would have been the way to ensure that outcome.

Actually it’s the opposite - both patents and copyrights expire after a period of time, which is the compromise we’ve reached between incentivising people to make money for themselves personally (giving them a legally protected right over their creations), and allowing wider society to benefit from inventions and scientific discovery. The fact that patents and copyrights do not exist in perpetuity points towards the idea that they exist to promote invention and scientific discovery in ways that can be commercially exploited but only for a limited time, usually by their creator or inventor (or his heirs under certain circumstances).

Not sure what else to tell you. This really isn’t that complicated or controversial, in the US at least.

Interesting how you’ve chosen to interpret that section.

When I was in law school we were taught what seemed obvious then and is obvious now: that Congress has the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by giving authors and inventors exclusive right to the economic fruits of their works. You can argue about flaws in the system but it’s pretty laughable to suggest that copyrights and patents don’t exist for the purposes of maximum economic value extraction for inventors and authors.

There is quite literally no other reason for granting a copyright or patent. It’s also why if a plaintiff is successful in a claim for an infringement of either, he’ll get awarded money in the United States that at a bare minimum is designed to compensate him for the money he would have made if the patent or copyright had been complied with. Europe has some different ideas about moral rights in this space, but since you’re quoting US material I assume you aren’t referring to our funny brothers across the pond.

It’s obvious to most people that humans act in certain ways due to incentives, and we like to incentivise invention and creativity in the West.

Either think and write for yourself or stay silent next time. It'd be infinitely better than telling another person to use an LLM to understand something you yourself don't understand and are too lazy to try to figure out.

I wish you the best.

Nah that’s not how that works. There are literally an endless stream of examples of the model providers tweaking backend stuff and improving prompt responses without using new or retrained data. And even if they added new training data to an existing model, it isn’t true to say that model ‘just came out’. But even then, when providers release better models based on new training data they release it as a new dot version, which boosts their sales from the announcement.

Fable has been out for more than a month - I didn’t have the preview version and I was using it around June 10th, when my Claude subscription expired. Saying “Fable only really came out 2 weeks ago” is just factually incorrect all around.

That’s not what second means in this context in English, and it’s incorrect to use it that way. This is because for something to be second there must have been something in first and only first, and so on; in this case there was a first and a second already, and you cannot amalgamate then because they didn’t tie (and even if they did, they’d be 1 and 2). Both logically and grammatically, it’s incorrect.

I used fable more than a month ago, what are you talking about?

Documenting offences?

What offences would those be? It isn’t an offence to record somebody on a train or else the person who recorded the video of the guy also committed an offence (and neither that person nor the guy did).

Didn’t read past that part. Mindless outrage culture is neither intellectually interesting nor healthy to be around.

What does that have to do with whether or not this should be on HN?

By your logic, literally anything from the '80s is appropriate for this site, which is obviously not correct lol.

Anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity

And no matter your view on the subject, a pop singer dying is not a topic that is capable of gratifying intellectual curiosity. It's about as banal as things get.

Nor is this a post that should be on HN, but here we are.

Grok free has become so bad over the past 3-6 months that I stopped using it completely. I’d assumed they were going to wind up, honestly.

I generally have fans around, but I too use a CO2 detector in my home and have tested it in various places and situations. CO2 concentrations are not as localised as you are making them out to be. If they are elevated in front of my face, for example, I can also similar numbers just above and slightly behind my head. If you go outside and do it, you’ll be surprised that the number doesn’t move really change at all when at arms’ length. Airflow is really everything here.

And, spoiler alert: if the entire area in front of you has an increased CO2 concentration, then your environment has an increased CO2 concentration. That’s the entire point.

Suffice to say I disagree strongly with both the argument that this would lead to hugely erroneous readings and also with the notion that people would panic.

CO2 does not stream out when you exhale like a fluid. It’s a gas. It dissipates quite immediately and behaves as all gases do - it expands to fill its container via something like Brownian Motion.

Uh, no.

Interesting. I didn’t have defenestrate in mine - I’d assumed they used the same word list.

AI labs do not have an incentive to downplay the risks and if you can’t understand that you’re naive and shouldn’t be writing Economist articles.

AI labs have every incentive to overstate the risks so that they can get lucrative government contracts, especially since it’s clearly not profitable going the public consumer route. And if you’re Anthropic you’re even more incentivised to overstate the risks because at this point in the game regulation hurts potential competitors more than it hurts you.

I hope more companies start doing this. If Europe wants to have laughably stringent laws and micromanage companies it should be prepared for many of those companies to exit the market. Europeans can either stop being unreasonable or, you know, create their own bloc-wide champions.

Next time you're speaking to a close non-techie friend or family member feel free to ask them how often/whether they ever use Siri, and then ask them why not, and you'll realise that no, this isn't some HN-specific peculiarity.

It’s basically LLM-slop in presentation form.

I hear Apple and I associate with it with laughable AI integration, an unserious UI, and buggy software.

Apple’s entire software stack has a branding problem.

Maybe observing Siri for the past 10 years?

They have no expertise in this area and their software quality as never been worse.

Because Americans don't really like the sport, it isn't popular in America, and thus nobody gets their kids to play it, resulting in Americans not really liking the sport, ad infinitum.

This article was not A.I.-assisted, it was clearly completely written by an AI in places.

Was responding to many of these comments, which read as if the commenters haven’t heard of this before.

The top comment in this thread is some dude asking if we can ‘do something now that we know the source’ lol.

We’ve known the source for 5 years. The fact this particular jamming originates from a Russian satellite and not Russian terrestrial-based equipment doesn’t change much. And while it’s unconvenient for planes and affects separation minima, planes have inertial systems and pilots deal with this easily. It happens in many places around the world, actually, although the Russians are definitely the worst offenders.