Cynddl

Once again, a page with a Pareto curve that is not a Pareto curve. Claude Haiku 5.5 is not on the curve, but inside. Seems like people don't really know what a Pareto curve is.

From the report:

> A few hours after they find the site, [the agents] start probing it for cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.

> among the groups receiving those services was the PKK

Do you have any evidence for that apart from a US executive order, the same that Banca Etica condemns for political motives?

> The providers did not acknowledge “any security implications arising from side channels or replay attacks.” All model providers acknowledged the receipt of our report and subsequently we were unable to launch the same attacks.

I went straight to the ‘Responsible Disclosure’ section. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

I had to search these terms, does ADR mean ‘Architecture decision record’ and C4 the ‘C4 model’? How do you combine them in documentation?

Good question. Unfortunately, academic knowledge is widely ‘verboten’ already. Everything under paywall, researchers having to pay up to $10,000 to publish in open access in some venues, rare books unavailable even to top universities. Access to knowledge and information is increasingly difficult for everyone.

That said, what matters here is the social contract, what do I bring to society and what do we get from tech companies. For most people around the world, access to the typical leading models is out of reach. Not many on this planet can pay the subscriptions (or even API keys) that offer access to the best models. So I'm not buying the argument that tech companies are broadening access. What we're creating is a increasingly discriminatory society where the few get access to information, and the many don't.

The issue here is ACM focusing on licensing. A non profit would not be able to pay ACM for access. Hence why this policy is hypocritical: it gives more power to the larger players and undermines smaller actors in the field who have fewer resources.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How would a philosopher of science, or a social scientist who publish in the ACM apply for a patent? Or someone who builds software (software patent not so easy to get ;)). I have applied for patents before and I'm pretty sure my patent application has been fed to countless LLMs by now.

The issue is not who owns knowledge, it's how it benefits humanity.

As a researcher with many articles in the ACM library, I have to say this is a masterclass in hypocrisy. Obviously, lawyers can decipher the terms of ACM publishing contracts and Creative Commons licences to determine if this will be acceptable or not. But ACM is not a company, it's a non-profit founded in 1947 to represent scientists.

I would be surprised if a majority of ACM members were to say yes should we ask them (but ACM is not known for such democracy). Along with book authors, we are one of the many people that provide the knowledge and expertise on which large tech firms train their models, and get nothing in return. Actually, life is getting worse for us: extra workload in universities with students' AI use, a completely broken peer review system, etc. Hence the irony of ACM thinking about licensing, and only licensing, at a time where this is the least of our priorities.

> For now these books are in corpuses of training data, but eventually I trust they will make their way to the rest of us.

What makes you think they will? What would be the incentives for these companies to do so?