doublescoop

But markets can make doing those things financially worthwhile.

But they sure seem awfully worried about other companies distilling their models. The irony is rich.

I was referring to "Lower ability to perform cybersecurity-related tasks," which is newspeak for hacking.

This is code for "this model can't be used to hack other systems as effectively as Opus or Mythos."

LLMs have an original sin: training data was not legally or ethically licensed. Getting anyone to believe that the result of that process should be protected by the laws that were ignored when it was created is never going to work.

Crediting the origin of the idea is the whole point of citing sources. Learning something from someone doesn't mean the idea is yours now. It means that when you repeat that idea, you should cite the original source of the idea.

This is just how scholarship works. It's not needed in the kind of day to day most of us do, but when you're writing a thesis for a PhD, this stuff matters. You're making the argument that you're expanding the totality of human knowledge with your dissertation, and that requires strict source citing to separate your original scholarship from the sources that influenced it.

I had a buddy in high school that was notorious for doing the same thing. (He's now a senior director at a Big 4 consultancy. :) )

Best practice in writing about technical concepts is to spell out acronyms like this on their first use. There is a ton of stuff I learn about here on HN that I didn't know anything about before.

It doesn't help that the linked article never bothers to explain this either.

If copyright law doesn't extend to the works being used for training, why should it extend to the model that is produced as a result? AI model creators have set up an ethical scenario where the right thing to do is ignore copyright laws when it comes to AI, which includes model use. It might never be legal, but it has become ethical to pirate models, distill them against ToS, etc.

As someone with 20 years in the industry, it seems absolutely plausible. Stupid, but entirely within the realm of possibility. The people making these calls have no loyalty to their company; they have loyalty to their own career. And if doing this is something that gives them a win and they can be gone by the time the consequences some around... it'll happen.

Hybrids are the only choice for the vast majority of the country that doesn't have the needed infrastructure to support EVs. If you never leave your urban enclave, then sure, EVs are great. But hybrids are perfect for _right now_, even if EVs are the future.

The Toyota hybrid engine is also rock solid and has been for more than a decade. They don't have a reason to abandon that right now when the industry is highly unstable and government funding for infrastructure that isn't Tesla's is being cut left and right.

This wasn't a case of the estates of dead authors trying to hold onto rights. Working authors were actively being harmed by the activities of the IA through the CDL. Working authors were met with refusals to meet to discuss this issue.

I don't think that characterization of Kahle is unfair at all. His position was unreasonable, determined to be illegal, and damaging to people who depend on copyright to license their work.

This is a theater that has waitstaff that take orders and bring food and drinks to your seat as you watch the show.

Don't want to tip, even though it's baked into the wage calculation? That's fine. The author is just pointing out that market forces means that folks aren't going to stay in those jobs.

ERP systems like Netsuite may or may not be good, but a huge portion of the bad experiences most users have with them has to do with configuration rather than the system itself.

There's an argument to be made that great systems can't be misconfigured, but the "everything and the kitchen sink" attitudes most of these business back-end systems are built with isn't really conducive to opinionated expertise driving product design.