hnfong

Seems to be blatant lying to me.

Tell me: why is EU safe from Trump forcing AI companies to cut access to EU?

Well, I think they might end up doing it to themselves by imposing regulations that US companies are unwilling to put up with.

Also the US government has defacto extra-territorial jurisdiction due to the willingness of allied countries (i.e. most of the developed world) to extradite.

Of course only applies when they really want to get you, but that's still a risk.

Well, these days there's little need for propaganda when people just blatantly do sh!t in the open and get away with it.

It's usually called self projecting in more common terms I think.

There's no way anyone could have made a model so good, it must have been distilled from the future.

I always suspect they have the most to lose if legal decisions on copyright issues don't go their way.

Imagine a scenario (theoretically possible but increasingly unlikely) where a US court decides that using "pirated" copyright data to train models is illegal. Now the AI developer has invested hundreds of billions of capital into a thing that is declared illegal and has to be scrapped.

This risk affects existing megacorps more than "startups" like OpenAI and Anthropic (and Chinese companies), because the megacorps have much more to lose. They actually have the cash to pay damages if the flood of copyright claims arrive at the door. This will not only bomb their AI development, but also the rest of their established businesses as well.

And thus I strongly suspect legal issues are holding them back a bit. Megacorps want to win the AI race, but not to the extent they stake the rest of their established business, while the newer companies' only product is AI, so they have to go all in.

Notice for example how Meta's Llama performed much more poorly after they got smacked by a bunch of lawsuits claiming that they torrented a bunch of copyright data.

(Disclaimer: I'm an outsider and everything I base my speculations on is public knowledge.)

Only those who intended to use the new technology as a tool to achieve dominance and control are freaking out.

And it's the only viable tool the US has left. It's reasonable they are freaking out.

European models are so far behind because they don't resort to these tactics on a massive scale. Basically every other country is entirely dependent on 2 countries for frontier AI.

You may or may not be factually correct in your other points, but you're really proving the GP's point here regarding American exceptionalism.

You two are talking about different things.

You are pointing out that OpenAI can cancel user's accounts for almost any reason, and nobody can really force them to serve customers that they suspect are distilling their models.

That's one thing.

The GP is saying the government can make laws to make terms against distillation unenforceable. Without such laws, if you signed an agreement with OpenAI pinky swearing you won't distill, but turns out you did, you are liable in tort and OpenAI can sue you. (It seems nobody really cares about contract and agreements any more, but still...)

This is the other thing.

And I think you are both right.

Well, then let's hope you're wrong and the AI bubble won't also blow up private equity and wipe out people's retirement funds...

It sounds vaguely similar to what Cerebras.ai is doing

Still cheaper than Cola

It means there's a non-trivial chance a future version of the model will know private information about you.

Maybe you're super careful with this stuff, but with agents and harnesses being given access to user data and accounts, I don't think it's feasible to actually monitor what information is uploaded and whether they involve private information.

I personally keep local models around because of this.

The markets can be irrational for a while, but if the Chinese models are about 90% of the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic models, and the Chinese companies are < 10% of OpenAI and Anthropic's proposed IPO valuations, something has to give eventually.

This isn't just the AI race, but the end to perceived American exceptionalism (where USA wins by default). It's going to take a while for people to recognize that. Before that the markets will still go crazy, but that's not evidence things will continue on as "normal".

Supplementing with evidence: https://x.com/stevibe/status/2026227392076018101

Claude Sonnet 4.8 reproducibly identifies itself as DeepSeek when asked in Chinese:

https://x.com/stevibe/status/2026227392076018101

I mean, people can point fingers however they want, and the fact is nobody actually "owns" the data they feed to their LLMs...

People have been able to run DeepSeek v4 flash with a high spec Mac.

In an extreme sense, yes. If the free stuff was given for a prolonged period of time with the expectation that it would continue indefinitely.

In modern terms, it's enabling others' pathological dependency on your free stuff.

The same way a normal parent would teach their child to become self sufficient instead of providing for them for their first 30 years of life and then tell them to figure out how to live after being used to not working.

I mean, it's pretty sad but there are examples of these things happening, and I definitely wouldn't say the parent is blameless for allowing this to happen.

At least one of those is true.

I agree, but you think OpenAI and Anthropic are not already at their absolute peaks of hype and investment?

At valuations of about trillion each, I don't know where else they'd go..

Also potentially a performance (in terms of output quality) cost. DeepSeek is cheap on a per token basis but lags behind in the benchmarks, perhaps it was a calculated tradeoff.

Ironically Windows XP was the first "consumer" (i.e. not "workstation") Windows version to not crash several times a day.

In the 98/ME era, it was pretty common to reboot every couple hours or the system would randomly do that for you.

So I clone a repo from Github and try to do due diligence before compiling and executing the code. I open the project with my IDE/text editor, and boom, I get pwned while doing the due diligence.

Unless it's Cursor's stance that people should use Emacs or whatever to check the repo before opening it, this is "you're holding it wrong" level stupid gaslighting.

If we take your logic to the extreme, then there are never any legitimate code execution vulnerabilities in web browsers since the user is not supposed to visit untrusted websites.

Same here. The git commands were confusing to me until I actually saw a Linus video on youtube explaining how the git data structures worked under the hood. It was dead simple, and one could easily mentally map the tools' functions onto how they operated on the data structures.

Once I understood that, as you said, everything clicked into place.

Somehow the "higher level abstractions" that git tries to do makes the things ever so more confusing.

I always feel obliged to link to this when contextually appropriate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Europe dismantled their own nuclear plants and are actively trying to ban electric vehicles from China.

Getting the rest of the world on board would be much easier when you (presumably are in Europe) are getting your domestic policies right.

Well, computing and AI technology is going to be nationalized and state owned in a couple years. Good luck.

At the Embassy of the Free Mind in Amsterdam, we’ve created https://SourceLibrary.org, a collection of over 15,000 translations of Renaissance and premodern books in NeoLatin, Chinese, Sanskrit, etc.

Wow, this is like... exactly(?) what I needed? (and since this is on topic for this discussion... What am I working on? Learning and writing about metaphysics and magic.)

This is wonderful stuff.

The web UI didn't vibe with me too well though. The only thing I saw on the first page was "Your email address or continue with Google". I mean, reading the books apparently do not require my email address or logging in, but I figured out much later only due to the fact that I really wanted to see the contents. (I'd imagine if somebody was only marginally interested they might have been scared away by the "give us your email address" thingy.)

Also, when reading the book contents, the browser back button didn't work for me. Felt a bit clunky for some reason. Couldn't put my finger on any specific issue other than the back button, but somehow didn't feel smooth. (I'm not a web frontend dev, so this is just my personal feeling.)

All that said, this is a wonderful resource.