DonsDiscountGas

No it's bog standard capitalism. If you want to buy something from somebody else, they (usually) have the right to refuse.

Have the AI explain it to you. You probably won't understand it as well as if you created it yourself, but there is (the potential for) lots of understanding.

Tbf they can pick the IPO price but they can't control the share price afterwards. So this advice is basically to price it conservatively, which seems reasonable.

The shorter name is corruption. It's not any more complicated than that.

Presumably because it makes the office suite more competitive. Would you rather use Google docs or Microsoft office? I think most people use docs because it's free at a small scale, but plenty of enterprises use it as well. And it's much harder to switch office suites then LLMs so they're better off trying to lock people in on the data side rather than the LLM side.

Yes and it was a fair complaint then too

It's not like you need to raise at least $5m to create an account here. There's a mixture of people.

My assumption on cryptography was that any published result could potentially help had actors, was unlikely to help good actors, and better to stay away completely. Can definitely see why they'd research but not publish in the other areas though.

The code might've been garbage in the one shot case. But it doesn't really matter IMHO

Human beings are often wrong, even catastrophically wrong, even when they have every incentive to be correct. Everybody knows that humans aren't perfect but somehow people like yourself pretend that isn't true when the implications become too unpleasant.

I don't just program for money, I do it to advance science and healthcare. I don't do it for the sheer love of reading or writing code. I don't care about the code, I care about what it does. I'm not sure why that's supposed to be bad, as though writing the perfect linked list implementation is better than saving lives.

Spending some time working alone and some time working with others is generally how collaboration works. It seems like he is working with NASA. You're being very nitpicky.

I didn't check but I thought they included lean certificates. That seems like an obvious thing to do. How do we even know any of this is right?

Yes and if they were keeping mathematicians in cages that would be a good point. These are the same mathematicians who already agreed to work with OpenAI, who were apparently okay with how the models were trained but were concerned about how they night be used. Which sounds fair in the abstract, but concretely it means that they didn't care about intellectually property rights until it was their own jobs on the line. Many such cases.

Apparently the write-ups are garbage (as in very hard to read). I feel like they could've had AI fix that up at least somewhat. Maybe they'll reinvest more in writing ability now.

They probably spent more than 3 hours on the failures, which could easily 10x that cost number. Still ridiculously cheap.

For the same reason I'm allowed to draw, paint, or write things very similar to what others have drawn, painted, or written but I have to sign my own name not theirs.

SynthID watermark but no visible signature

They give up anything that isn't vested and have 90 days to exercise options that have vested. A standard vesting schedule is 4 years and apparently this guy is at 3.5 so yeah he'd be giving some up.

How many of those made it an actual barrier requiring an explicit click and not just some CYA text buried in a footer somewhere? Anyway they're free to sue.

Keep an offline copy of Qwen or something together with a knowledge base. Easy if you plan ahead.

One is allegedly a copyright violation (fair use IMHO but still a grey area legally AIUI), one is a very explicitly a violation of the terms of service you agree to when signing up. And yes I do think that if somebody puts their website behind some barrier where a user has to actively affirm they won't download the contents and use it to train an LLM that should be protected by the same law for the same reason.

They want it to be the best at something. And it's obviously not the absolute smartest. So here we are.

It happens. Most open licenses aren't GPL style copyleft.

Building frontier LLMs and coding agents isn't easy either

Time is more precious then energy for a great number of people. Which includes a lot of Porsche drivers I'm guessing.

It has its own Google account, so maybe CC like in email? Which is "carbon copy".

Presumably they had this model already

> Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”

Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?

The most obvious answer is that freedom needs no justification, restrictions on freedom need a justification.