hector_vasquez

I'll vote with my vote as well, and my vote will not be for candidates who equate computers with tables. Hacking isn't a human right. Go buy a different phone if you don't like Apple's phones. There are a bunch to choose from.

There have been several companies that tried to sell open mobile devices over the years, but people have shown time and time again that they don't want to buy that product. We can wish it were different all we like, but in general we aren't entitled to money-losing, unmarketable products.

I wonder the lengths smartphone vendors are going to prevent this kind of attack. I cannot imagine it is easy to completely validate hardware in such an elaborate supply chain. I shudder to think about the attack surface in something like a modern car.

Did you steal this metaphor from a written work without compensating the writers?

The main problem with this clever mad lib is that published works are published for the express purpose of being read, understood, synthesized, and used as context for knowledge. That is literally the whole reason to publish something. That is all fair use and has been for a very long time. Teachers, critics, writers, everyone who reads, use written works in pretty much exactly this way. If I buy a book about fishing I am allowed to teach what I learn to anyone I want, and even charge for it. Anthropic is choosing not to publish some of its products’ internal workings, as is their right. I find all the righteous indignation about this rather insolent.

What we hope for is mostly irrelevant. The enterprises investing vast sums in research will do everything they can to make their products competitive and marketable. Same as ever. The continued existence of this market is basically predicated on stopping distillation. In effect, commoditization of the frontier stops the frontier. We cannot have something as expensive as intelligence both ways.

Opus 5.5 is the best model I’ve ever used. It is certainly not “impossible” to use. The numbers back it up too. If you don’t like a product or the people selling it, don’t use it. The sense of entitlement in this post is remarkable. If you have principles, stand on them. You are not entitled to anything more here.

My software application uses Haiku in production more or less as a Jev. I do not use it for coding or development.

Ex-NVIDIA employee here who worked on inference software. When it comes to inference software and models, NVIDIA's strategy is advancing the state of the art in the open model realm. They are building software and services business for those markets that need to be competitive on their own merits, and quantization and precision tuning are techniques they use themselves constantly.

The allegation is that OpenAI explicitly requested that people bring and explain actual prototypes ("show and tell"), and downloading files from iCloud Drive after quitting Apple to join OpenAI. What you're describing is not even remotely on this level.

Man sets out to write article on DK Effect, comes across one skeptical study, confidently writes article refuting DK Effect.

It writes itself.

If there was ever a time to sell all your stocks and buy gold, this is it. NVIDIA to zero. This will make COVID look like a market hiccup.

Having worked at Apple and similarly giant companies, the idea that "they have enough money to do it" is incredibly naive. Rewriting all the basic software primitives of the iPhone, or the Mac, or iCloud, or CloudKit, or choose whatever massive surface area this legislation impacts, is not a matter of simply spending enough. Doing so requires the time and attention of the very few subject matter experts who are able to competently do it. The true cost is to your strategy, your business plan, and your product roadmap.

So it becomes a purely business decision: Do we risk a 10% global revenue penalty to release this globally, do we release this everywhere the DMA does not apply, or do we simply not build it? And make no mistake, even if Apple moved heaven and earth to try to comply with DMA they are STILL RISKING the full 10% penalty if the EU decides against them.

Releasing the model to bad actors at the same time as the major OS, browser, and security companies would be one idea. But some might consider that "messed up" too, whatever you mean by that. But in terms of acting in the public benefit, it seems consistent to work with companies that can make significant impact on users' security. The stated goal of Project Glasswing is to "secure the world's most critical software," not to be affirmative action for every wannabe out there.