741–750 of 873 posts
10 days for an appeal is too long. Company is a startup, so no team/enterprise support.
The real reason, afaik, that the US is trying to restrict access to SOTA models is that a very large component of USA tailored access and surveillance relies on exploits and weaknesses that these models will easily detect. Thus, it really is an export control issue, but it has nothing to do with offensive capabilities. Offensive capabilities always exist, but pervasive defensibility would upset the asymmetric advanta…
As someone in the field for 30+ years, I find that, generally speaking, the only groups that use this term are charlatans and military/military-adjacent. The military use has been slowly leaking into the general public, but I quite wish it would stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. It doesn't matter though. If we can't trust the US administration won't just apply 50% taxes tomorrow because some EU representative said something mean to the president, then we can't rely on goods or services exported by the USA anymore. It's just chaotic. Chaos isn't good for business. What if Microsoft were instructed, on short notice, to block EU customers from using Entra over a trade dispute? If the i…
[dead]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. It doesn't matter though. If we can't trust the US administration won't just apply 50% taxes tomorrow because some EU representative said something mean to the president, then we can't rely on goods or services exported by the USA anymore. It's just chaotic. Chaos isn't good for business. What if Microsoft were instructed, on short notice, to block EU customers from using Entra over a trade dispute? If the i…
[dead]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot to write ZERO after TWO. 20% VAT to begin with payed with heavily taxed money of mine. Than on top of payed by provider of services to UK gov machine making 10usd sub be 10£ sub.
Irrelevant. VAT is charged on most services and by everyone. Not specific to digital services.
why digital services are so special you want more taxes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair question, and I was vague just so as not to balloon the comment. I work in a financial startup. The codebase is a mess and very much spaghettified. One rework that forced us to migrate our data model from 1:1 users loans to M:N (many-to-many) took two months and touched ~40% of the codebase... multiple times. Huge churn. And it just crossed two months of work, even though it's now in its very final phases. I kno…
I know this is a tangent, but > Introduce and enforce structs for passing context and input shapes around. So as to stop fighting with NULLs, lack of keys in maps and other maddening cases that inflate your coding lines for no other reason than programming languages not having higher-order constructs on well-researched and mostly resolved computer science problems Amen to that.
Those who tried are only doing it in mostly academic/toy languages which is a damned shame. We _really_ need those constructs, compile-time enforced, in commercial codebases, like 25 years ago at least!
People are trying everywhere though but I've witnessed CTOs getting cold feet and fearing their codebase will get too abstract or hard to maintain when they hire the next dev.
Group-think and conformism and fear of change, demonstrated live, every day. :/
So yep -- amen to that indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marketing stunt by who dude? Do you really think Anthropic would really go this far? This whole situation is completely absurd. The federal government is arbitrarily restricting AI models without really providing any reasoning. This is not a clear and transparent government and it just feels like gears are moving behind the scenes that have lead this out of character restriction of private and extremely wealthy (at l…
I can see a limited way this benefits Anthropic. They've been having issues with one or more Chinese companies using Anthropic models' outputs at high scale to train their own models. By restricting Fable and Mythos temporarily and then rolling out to their most important customers first, then requiring identity verification, they may be able to slow that behavior significantly.
If Anthropic wanted to continue slow rolling their best model to a select few companies they could've kept expanding mythos access instead
Not to mention the fact that OpenAI has had time to prep 5.6 for release so that there will actually be an alternative around the same intelligence point as Fable. This is just all around terrible for Anthropic.
If you want a conspiracy theory, the one that says "this is corporate assassination" or "the US government does want to be in the business of picking winners" is much much much closer to the truth than yours.
Rather than buying either conspiracy theory, though, I expect Hanlon's razor describes the situation best (incompetence on one side, inability to coordinate/communicate effectively with the current administration on the other)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not. If this technology has export restrictions, then Anthropic and OpenAI will go out of business. Anthropic's revenues are already 66% international.
Being nationalized removes the fear of going out of business. They would become like the post-office but for delivering and centralizing all digitalizable knowledge.
'Being nationalized' is 'Going out of business' - in this context.
The US will not pay market prices that investors would want - and - everyone working there would leave.
Even if they did not - the fuel required to keep it going would not be provided.
US Gov is not geared to lead an institution like that.
It would evaporate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is a reasonable term to use in the context of adversarial AI development. Does that mean I am getting paid by the CIA or something?
> I think it is a reasonable term to use in the context of adversarial AI development Distillation is neither an 'attack', nor 'adversarial' in any reasonable sense. > Does that mean I am getting paid by the CIA or something It at the very least means you're uncritically parroting the framing of a company that'd like nothing more than to successfully persuade lawmakers that something should be done about open Chinese…
I think this is mostly a confusing way to describe it, but I'm not really sure why you say it isn't an attack or adversarial. One side is doing something the other side doesn't want. Seems to be pretty clearly adversarial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being nationalized removes the fear of going out of business. They would become like the post-office but for delivering and centralizing all digitalizable knowledge.
holy camole, no. 'Being nationalized' is 'Going out of business' - in this context. The US will not pay market prices that investors would want - and - everyone working there would leave. Even if they did not - the fuel required to keep it going would not be provided. US Gov is not geared to lead an institution like that. It would evaporate