nl
For the second: No, not fine tuning at all.
For one thing in-context learning is enough for learning novel tasks[1].
Secondly, it can do new things outside that data. LLMs build models of the world[2]. That means it can model novel behavior based on that internal representation.
I can't find it now, but somewhere off https://shorepine.github.io/amy/piano.html it talked about the Android work you did.
A neural network can do new things outside the training data. Random initialization sees to that.
Whether those things are useful is a different question, but it turns out that yes, some of those things are useful. It also turns out that in a large-enough LLM if you give it some kind of idea of what you see as useful then yes, it can pick out the newly useful things.
This isn't true.
While the "copyrightability" report[1] mostly deals with images (it was written before coding agents) it's quite clear how code generated by an AI driven by humans can be copyrightable:
> The Office finds that the compilation of these images and text throughout the Work contains sufficient creativity under Feist to be protected by copyright. Specifically, the Office finds the Work is the product of creative choices with respect to the selection of the images that make up the Work and the placement and arrangement of the images and text on each of the Work’s pages.
and
> Unlike prompts alone, these tools can enable the user to control the selection and placement of individual creative elements. Whether such modifications rise to the minimum standard of originality required under Feist will depend on a case-by-case determination. In those cases where they do, the output should be copyrightable
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
It's more interesting on an open road but horrible to drive in traffic. Overall both of us hate the experience.
I get my new electric car (a Geely) on Wednesday.
Both things can be true.
I'm old enough to have lived without the internet. I'll take this over that anytime.
> Facebook has shown it cares more for money than being a steward. Don't see how you can trust them.
It's precisely this love of money that make me trust them. They value what they get from my data, so they do their best to keep it to themselves.
That's much better than ISP (for example) that sell raw traffic data.
Does this mean you recommend not using one? Because that goes against all the common best practice recommendations from when I did a couple of years working in Web3 stuff a few years back.
> I think it's naive to suggest that self-custody is just a novelty with no value.
That's not what I suggested.
I suggested that it is less secure over time than centralized exchanges, even with the things you listed.
Convenient date to pick there.
> which of those assets would you have preferred to own and why?
NVDA.
It's a productive use of resources, not a last-fool-standing pyramid scheme.
Given things like the ledger hardware attack[1] I think the time indexed risk of using a centralized exchange is probably lower than doing self-custody.
I understand that many people do self-custody for philosophical reasons, but I think trying to disguise this as a security decision ("If your crypto was stolen in this, it wasn't your crypto.") is arguable at best.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/70f69253-6017-4259-95c9-48bf0e088...
I have a Facebook account and use Instagram.
My reasons are many:
I believe it should be my choice what happens to my data, and don't particularly care if Meta has the parts I share with them.
I don't believe advertising is intrinsically evil, and in fact I think it's probably been a net-good for society.
I think Meta is a better steward of my data than ISPs or telecoms.
I didn't particularly want the ugly app, but it is implemented in GadgetBridge[1], which is on codeberg.
That's an Android app, but I wanted a MacOS version.
I LLM-reverse engineered the API based on the GadgetBridge work and now have a MacOS version, specific for my device. As part of that I worked out how to do temperature monitoring (which GadgetBridge doesn't support). Normally I'd contribute that back, but codeberg has been very explicit on their policy of no-LLM work, so I guess I won't do that.
So much for community.
Further:
> They were trained on stolen information, and where they didn't break the law they corrupted social contracts.
I completely reject this framing. Learning on something has always been part of the social contract (public libraries are a great example).
They have what seems good prices, but then you realize the "Pro" plan only includes "Pro" models, not "Advanced" and there is no list of what is what.
So you Google and find the Reddit conversations where it turns out hardly anything is included.
OTOH if you are really concerned about privacy it's probably not the best choice (it's random people's machines).
I recently implemented a beam-forming microphone with LLM transcription (offloaded to a browser model)[1] and was able to get all the beamforming and noise cancellation DSP code running on the second core along with the UI, while the and webserver that streams audio uses core 0.
I don't use SIMD myself, but it uses esp-dsp which is already using it.
It's certainly not a clear downside.
Google still has to build and run the chips they rent to Anthropic. I think from their last earnings Google makes ~30% on it, excluding R&D costs. It's a nice business for them, but hardly the thing that is going to make or break Anthropic as a business.
You're glossing over
> every single niche they've tried to launch and failed to get any traction on.
This isn't true. I personally know a company that has trained over 300 companies this year to use Claude Cowork mostly for "business operations" type tasks.
People love offloading boring, repetitive tasks to it. And the spend is spending - most start on a free plan and after 3 months have multiple people on the Teams plans.
> Chinese models are pretty much on par.
There isn't even an open source harness that is close to Cowork. ChatGPT work is closest, but everything else if coding focused and a mess for people who aren't coders.
How so?
I don't really follow Brazilian politics, but Jair Bolsonaro was found guilty by the Brazilian Supreme Court of:
participation in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, attempted coup d'état, qualified damage, and deterioration of protected heritage property.[1]
Flávio Bolsonaro is Jair Bolsonaro's son. "attempted coup d'état" is a failed coup.
There don't seem to be any serious questions that the process was fair and that the Supreme Court was impartial (I mean there are always Trumpian accusations of bias, but I mean ones with any evidence at all).
The only part I could see possible disagreement with is organizer I suppose? But I must be missing something.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_for_the_2022%E2%80%93202...
Because it's an investment it is risk capital. They won't be happy if they don't get a return but their return is part ownership in the company, not a legal contract giving an income stream.
No they don't.
A company has legal obligation to pay loans at the agreed rates.
There is legal obligation that defines rates of return beyond "acting in shareholder interest" (and OpenAI is a public benefit corporation so even this is reduced).
No.