cvadict
Joined 3 years ago
Joined 3 years ago
-or- in places where you simply want to maintain a compilation firewall, for compile times, or encapsulation... i.e. you don't want to update the "visitor" in a pile of unrelated files each time you come up with a new Event.
Sure, but if you read the article you would know that deal can (and will undoubtedly) be altered. The passkey issuer can demand that the passkey be hardware-backed, and I've already run into passkeys that cannot be stored in bitwarden out in the wild (i.e. they REQUIRE that I use a TPM-backed store in my computer). Eventually it will be a particular TPM-backed store running on an attested platform. Now that's not generally the case today, but make no mistake, that IS the ultimate goal... You will only access valuable services from devices that you fundamentally have no control over (e.g. locked down OS's with attestation before you can access X,Y,Z), so that you can't steal from netflix, skip the sponsor segments on youtube, block ads in your web browser, etc. etc. etc. If you want a preview of how this might all work from the technical side, just look into how TEE works for large-scale GPU deployments right now.
-or- just pay the author the $7 or whatevs if you use it.
Same with pitbulls. Like "neat you hid it from your insurance company, boy you sure showed them!" They are going to be so super sad to cash all of your premium checks for years and THEN pay out $0 on the liability claim when fido rips a kids face off.
IIRC, this was 100% it. Lending one digital version of one physical asset was likely already a violation copyright. Lending UNLIMITED digital versions of one physical copy was DEFINITELY a blatant violation of copyright.
So weird that the same exact people telling you that programming careers are now obsolete are the same group who haven't been able to fix screen flickering bugs for like a year...
Help! Someone else is blatantly ripping off my plagiarism machine!
This is the same exact industry that gives you paid usage limits as a unit-less percentage bar then gaslights customers every time the algorithm running that percentage bar changes or they lobotomize an existing model with increased quantization to squeeze a few more dollars out of existing hardware.
"Failing cleanly" might make their moated hype-machine look bad pre-IPO, so they certainly aren't going to do that voluntarily.
So far I have mixed impressions, but they do indeed seem noticeably weaker than comparably-sized Qwen3 / GLM4.5 models. Part of the reason may be that the oai models do appear to be much more lobotomized than their Chinese counterparts (which are surprisingly uncensored). There's research showing that "aligning" a model makes it dumber.
Exactly! Nobody would be laughing if Al-Qaeda drove a giant Dasani truck into TSA headquarters, would they?