Ginden

Now we have new ways to solve this problem: send Haiku or Luna to do task using computer use, but without access to code. If it can't complete it, or takes too long, docs are bad.

This requires keeping history if, at the time, Buckmaster's account had a certain flag set, because just because the account has the flag now doesn't mean it had the flag at a certain moment in the past. And even if they had such history, it's not obvious whether they just load all data as-is into training.

A totally reasonable pipeline may be unauditable for this purpose.

And, of course, you can train a model to start with repeating prompt in chain of thought!

My employer bought me a Claude Max subscription. On heavy weeks I use 80% of the subscription. And among software engineers that I know, I'm a relatively heavy user.

Why? Because in my experience, the bottleneck is in shareholders approving new features, not my ability to dish out code.

"Age-restriction laws push platforms toward intrusive verification systems that often directly conflict with modern data-privacy law" - when you make rules contradictory, someone always violate these laws, and you can use selective persecution to "convince" companies to favor you, the incumbent politician. You don't even have to use such power, just a "joke" may be enough to send have any rational CEO licking your shoes.

European proponents of "anti-big-tech action" make it pretty explicit - broad discretionary power should be given to executive branch, because otherwise "international corporations" will use "loopholes" (and these "loopholes" are, in practice, explicitly written laws used as intended).

You need only a device on network to spam DHCP messages with malware DNS. So you don't need "shady hotspot", only compromised device within network.

> easily solved

Asynchronous (you don't know when and where you will get Internet/local network connectivity) mesh (there is no gov infrastructure to be trusted) networking in presence of malicious (gov operated) and unreliable (destroyed by gov) nodes is probably among hardest problems known to computer science.

Mining in Arctic is a technical nightmare. Typical alloys become brittle in these temperatures, darkness severely limits operations and/or workplace accidents, transport requires ice-breakers, permafrost is fundamentally unstable (heat from buildings melts it, causing sinking), and you need to pay people a lot to work there.

There are multiple tech companies with quadrillion-deep pockets.

Because almost everyone involved in AI race grew up in "winner takes it all" environments, typical for software, and they try really hard to make it reality. This means your model should do everything to just take 90% of market share, or at least 90% of specific niche.

The problem is, they can't find the moat, despite searching very hard, whatever you bake into your AI, your competitors will be able to replicate in few months. This is why OpenAI is striking deal with Disney, because copyright provides such moat.

Oh, you mean specifically GPL v3 license, not any GPL license.

Yeah, broad tivoisation and patent clauses make it a problem, because making any patent litigation on unrelated grounds has potential to lose ability to ship the entire OS.

So what? Standalone binaries don't infect other things with copyleft anyway.

> given support to these fake public interest groups in attempts to sue wind projects out of existence.

Remember - that's the core issue. Development of housing or green energy projects or industries with low externalities should be by-right.

Electricity is not really an expensive resource for communications. You need like a single rooftop to provide WiFi for the entire village.

This is merely an engineering problem.

The hardest part of building nukes is acquiring weapon-grade enriched uranium, because it's controlled as hell and you will get bombed if you try to make your own.

If you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on enriched uranium, paying salaries for team of engineers is the easy part.