KoolKat23

That may be the case.

But misses the point. The guy owns his own Twitter competitor, yet has to go there if he wishes to have any influence.

It's where influential folks post. Whether you like it or not.

Glad to hear it might be thrown out.

What a horrible idea. This is like creating a special tax on start up capital. It goes against so many fundamentals, such as increasing efficiency, productivity, automation, carbon. It's just crazy.

You clearly have not been on in a while, such discussions have returned.

For example just yesterday there was a tweet by Richard Sutton.

Even Zuckerberg tweets.

I'm not sure about this. I myself am curious about this model, but not for my own use. I've already written it off as too expensive. The money won't be flowing their way regardless.

Well I guess it's time the mathematics business model is updated.

This line of thought was made popular following the Navier-stokes thing, sadly it was only confirmed after the news died down that there was 100% no way that it used the involved researchers discussions with OpenAI in its output.

Quid pro quo, the models helping you, you're helping the model. Simple as that. Opt out of training if you have an issue with that.

Honestly I don't see the issue at all. So long as your infrastructure can handle it and there is no cost to you it should be fine.

The only proviso is that you should not be able to block distillation on your models you trained using others data.

I also don't appreciate the sensational framing of adult content here, it's purely meant to appeal to irrational emotions. We all know how models train, input and output are very different things here.

That's included in the definition of offense. Something that upsets or hurts someone. Intentional or not intentional.

It's no different really, just delayed, so slower. The same but slightly less effective.

I feel this is pedantry. It's been used in good faith as a neutral term to address all, basically no different to using words others don't like such as moist.

If this level of pedantry can be considered acceptable, how on earth do these folks justify/cope with terminology used in "empowerment" initiatives who often use very non-inclusive wording more so than "guys".

And Ironically across the sea in UK, to a smaller extent Ireland (and I'm not sure perhaps may be elsewhere too). There's been a concerted social media push by some folks to reduce inheritance taxes and portray them as bad. One visible proponent was Jeremy Clarkson, you know the large farm owner, it's quite easy to see why he would benefit.

The models will be a commodity, the resources to run the frontier will be the luxury good. This is already the case nearly.

There are plenty of things we use and found useful before we understood them. We knew how to make it, how it works was for the most part inconsequential.

Just btw, most assume when you say Cowork you're referring to Anthropic Cowork as it's the original rather than Microsoft's white labelled Cowork. And when you say Sol or whatever model you're referring to OpenAI and use on its servers. Microsoft's versions are not at parity with the originals. I feel your pain on being limited by silly enterprise restrictions.

On your point about "monitoring", personally I feel this is toxic corporate IT culture, enabled and perhaps pushed by the likes of Microsoft with all their tools, which they of course make money off. People have cellphones with cameras making most points in this area moot.

An alternative used in other big corporates is to set budgets, with tiered authorisation approvals for higher limits. The users and their managers can justify why and what they're doing that they need the additional tokens. This also encourages more efficient use of tokens on other work. More efficient use is sometimes counterintuitive. Laissez-faire generally works best.

Cowork requires user approvals for high risk actions such as emailing.