861–870 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the group tasked with developing whatever hardware device they're trying to build is isolated away from senior leadership and is running rogue?
Why not? It may be the old plausable denable thing. Like so many examples. Pressure from the top but no instruction to do $badthing.
OpenAI are really starting to look and smell like “the bad guys” in the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers walked into their walled garden with joy. It's no where near what this article describes.
Developers didn't get a choice. It was either "pay for Apple's development services" or "don't publish apps" which isn't a very competitive or fair option when the App Store can arbitrarily reject you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anthropic trains on your data This is why companies are wanting the AWS hosted models because they trust AWS running of the same models more than the vendors themselves.
Only for Opus etc. For “Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models on Bedrock with similar or higher capability levels,” your usage data is retained for 30 days and shared with Anthropic which you can’t opt out of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) This is a legit point although i don't see Valve as a big problem in that area. They invented lootboxes but refused to be as bad as others who followed them. Today with valve these things are restricted purely to cosmetics. 2) is weak. The 30% rate was set in 2003 when Steam had zero market power and was identical to the rate used by Apple, PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo. Valve later added tiered reductions (25%…
30% was set when they were handpicking every title, a home internet line today was a $10,000+ a month DC connection, and they could legitimately replace a publisher taking 60%. The fact they whittled away the value they provided time and time again until they became a market of slop and had the audacity to keep a 30% cut is insane. It's funny that gamers villainize Sweeny for being the person that they think Newell i…
Apple has all the money in the world to take this to court, I don't see why they'd accept a settlement. The discovery process alone could honestly destroy OpenAI by making investors and employees nervous enough to look elsewhere. Would be especially interesting if this crosses into criminal territory, especially if there's solid proof of upper management or executives being aware.
They just released 5.6 to great fanfare with benchmarks showing even their weakest model (Luna) supposedly smoking Fable. Having used it a couple hours I'm certain this is a lie, and I'm now curious what else is.
1. a chance to correct problems you couldn't before because things evolved too much 2. don't break rules or agreements you have signed before
The first one is the key part - I think redoing something the second time almost always ends up in a better result. If you are paid to do it with enough resources and team then all the more easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI also has infinite money, and the graph for money/lawyering gets clamped well below what OpenAI can afford. It's going to end most other corporate courtroom tangles: with an undisclosed settlement and a well-publicized partnership.
I agree that both companies have sufficient capital that legal resources are a a wash. But: > It's going to end most other corporate courtroom tangles: with an undisclosed settlement and a well-publicized partnership. This we don't know. We don't know what Apple wants to accomplish with this suit. They may be more interested in the injunctive relief than the monetary recovery. They may want to weaken OpenAI as part o…