U.S. allows Anthropic to release Mythos AI to ‘trusted’ US organizations

> I didn't (and don't) understand your point, but in an earlier post you made some claim about it being Anthropic - you can't steal from Anthropic.

I do believe that Anthropic complaining about their TOS being violated is rich and should be thrown into the dustbin considering that Anthropic violates other people's TOS when it suits their business.

I do also think them complaining about it is aimed purely at influencing lawmakers to ban open Chinese models and eliminate choice so that them and OpenAI are the only game in town.

As far as other models distilling using Claude, that's just consuming the output of a service in a particular way. Anthropic should be very careful about imposing restrictions of how you can use their model output if they want to maintain marketshare. Enterprises are not going to like that.

That leaves the TOS violation of maybe hitting the service too fast, using too many accounts etc. Except again Anthropic did exactly the same thing when scraping for training data.

Do you believe The Pirate Bay complaining about a competing site stealing 'their' torrents should be taken seriously?

That's how I look at this.

For these reasons, I don't think Anthropic has a legitimate argument here.

Also distilling simply means using the answers from one model to specific questions to steer another model to answer a category of questions in a similar manner using its own capabilities. So as far as extracting weights, it's not exactly that, it's maybe slightly biasing the model that's being distilled so that its weights might look somewhat closer to the model used for distillation, but it's far from extracting them exactly/directly.

Checking back on this thread and wow. The absolutely rabid energy with which Republicans will fabricate information to evade personal moral responsibility for making the COVID death toll worse is incredible.

We have a completely medically illiterate user citing (one) of an endless supply of studies as evidence that vaccines killed people. The study doesn't say that... which isn't surprising because the rest of the literature doesn't either... and nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners...

It's as if the prospect of being responsible for contributing to the deaths of countless innocent people made them hallucinate exonerating text.

I wonder if post-genocide states see similar outbursts of insane flights of fiction about basic facts. I imagine they do.

Loper Bright overruled Chevron and removed its special deference for statutory interpretation by executive regulatory agencies. More deference to the executive existed under Chevron than now exists under Loper Bright.

Less judicial deference = more executive power? How does that story go?

The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines.

If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.

> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue.

That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today).

Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist.

It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly.

Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that.

I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad.

Is that your goal? I sure hope not.

>no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000

MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually.

>If you bother to read the conclusions sections

You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass?

No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math.

I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated.

Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science.

This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge.

Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.