soerxpso

There are obvious reasons why it's expedient to grant the same rights to a collective organization as to its constituents. If you're getting confused by the abstraction, you're welcome to pretend that the board of Facebook (which is comprised of humans) are exercising their individual rights to free speech.

This ban also applies to on-prem hosting of Deepseek, and to finetunes/post-trains of Deepseek models that are provided by US-based inference providers. It's not a given that the Chinese would be able to access any of that.

No I'm not, Claude is

I would actually prefer having a job so that I can avoid starving, than to "win the talent war", whatever that means.

Microsoft is banking on the fact that nobody looks for jobs in the paper. The point is to use the lack of response be able to write on paperwork that they've proven that no qualified jobseekers exist in the US. They are aware that advertising in the newspaper is not an effective way to fill a position; the goal is to lie about how much they tried.

Please use more than one brain cell in order to consider the intent behind those guidelines, and whether what Microsoft (and similar companies) is doing is actually within the bounds of what voters and the representatives who wrote the relevant laws wanted. Do you really think the purpose of making companies advertise the job opening in a newspaper was just to give companies a bunch of busywork? or might there have actually been an intent behind it? Are you capable of ascertaining what that intent is? (note: this question has a right answer that all people arguing in good faith are capable of stating)

For the record, under current US law, it is not illegal to have a sentence in your locally-stored notes on your phone outlining a plan to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act. The police in that instance could inform the intended victim, surveil you, etc, but they would not be able to successfully charge you with attempted murder. It's not illegal to be considering committing a crime, even if you have a tendency to write down your thoughts.

The law in this particular case, which seems to be intended for threats that you actually send to someone, is being interpreted broadly to apply to any "threat" that you transmit to a server. So in your hypothetical, the legality would depend on whether your notes are backed up to icloud or not.

It's a reach to even say that's a function of government. It's definitely not a primary function. Outside of a few relatively brief failed experiments, it's not historically something that government does at all.

In what way would checks and balances do that at all? The only branch that has any sort of leeway to pass unpopular policies is the Supreme Court, and setting budgetary constraints is far outside their purview.

I don't see why I would be interested in this model, considering the price difference. They advertise that it's the same as Kimi K3 in half the tokens. But the pricing is double the pricing of K3. So why do I care if it uses fewer tokens, if I'm paying double per token?

"No it doesn't."

Jev doesn't require finetuning. All of the posts claiming that the technology already existed are missing that I don't want to spend a week to create a dataset (for a problem I might not already have data for), finetune a model, and set up infrastructure to run the model, every time I have a small routing or classification problem. The ability to knock out any arbitrary classification problem in minutes instead of in a week is a big deal.

I would think it's possible to make it so that the 4B model only needs to be called during an initial phase, and then the same queries it constructed can just be re-used with values replaced, unless you're generating a lot of unique on-the-fly query shapes.

Firstly it's very difficult to press criminal charges when the victim is uninterested. It's not clear that HuggingFace would want criminal charges against OpenAI, especially to set a precedent that could easily be used against HuggingFace in the future.

Secondly you'd have to convince a jury either that OAI intended to hack the targets, or that they were criminally negligent. Intent would obviously not be provable since they likely didn't, in reality, intend for it to happen. Regarding negligence, OAI's attorney would argue that the agent was in a sandbox, that industry-standard security protocols were followed, etc. It would not be anywhere near as much of a slam dunk case as you're imagining. It would be similar, for example, to an assault case where someone's dog broke off of a standard leash and attacked someone.

It's formalized in Lean, isn't it? Do you also rely on a community of C++ experts to tell you whether a program compiles or not?