no-name-here

True, but OAI’s new solution has the following advantages:

* Lets people use whatever approach they prefer (- and if someone wants to keep their existing setup they can - with reasonable limits)

* Minimizes risk of users getting banned, including due to A) activity they didn’t know was disallowed, or B) false positives from OAI

* Heads off different future loopholes

* Avoids adding more TOS complexity

* Avoids users being uncertain if borderline activities will get them banned

1. We are now 6 comments levels deep into this thread and I still haven't seen the quote supporting your original claim that they "demand they be the only place to run inference"; did you make that claim up?

2. If I made broad claims here that you both believed to be untrue and you'd tried to research and the only stuff you found showed they were lies (and 6 comment levels later, a supporting quote had still not been provided), would you argue that showed I was arguing in good faith?

3. My parent comment even specifically allowed that when you said "all the silicon in the world" you may not have meant what you said, and instead you only meant one specific sub-type of silicon in one specific sub-area of the world. If we changed your claim from "all the silicon in the world" to "one specific sub-type of silicon in a small region of the world", would your claim then be true? If so, what kind and where?

4. Is the idea that pointing out where a broad claim may actually be untrue should not be done? Is there a specific better comment that you believe would have better responded to your original claims about "demand they be the only place to run inference" and "all the silicon in the world"? I am open to hearing the specific reply you suggest.

5. But here, let's go with the idea that 6 levels in we are still assuming there is no bad faith. What is the good faith basis / quote on top of which to view "demand they be the only place to run inference" as being true?

1. That’s a legal grey area that could result in significant legal exposure for Anthropic.

2. Even if someone wants to do something that’s in a legal grey area, or more (hacking others, another item limited by Anthropic), is the idea that such people won’t have the ability to use AI to do those things? I don’t understand the criticism that just because one company might institute some guard rails that those who want to conduct legally grey or black activities will be unable to use other AIs to do so?

1. You make strong definitive statements like "there is plenty of waste" that could be cut "without even impacting" programs' results, but then can't actually quantify it? How can you make strong definitive statements if you simultaneously say "I wouldn't begin to say I have the answers or prescriptions to what should be cut"?

2. Regardless, is there any national politician who has named and quantified the items that they would cut that you support? As this seems to be a large, long-running problem within the right ('news', politicians, etc.) where they will make significant claims about wanting to cut gov spending without ever actually naming the programs they want to end and what % of the ~11T/y spending it adds up to.

3. You pointed to how when the US was set up in the 1700s that the government had different goals, and that there were wildly different expectations of what government provided for its citizens. Do you think the expectations of what the government provided in the 1700s are still relevant for what US citizens expect (or demand) of government services in the 21st century?

4. Every program will have some waste and abuse, and organizations typically then spend money to combat the waste and abuse. Sometimes the cost of fighting the waste and abuse, and/or the increased bureaucracy and overhead to prevent the issues in the first place, even exceed the costs of the waste and abuse that is being combatted. But my point is that even if waste exists, the 'cure' might be worse than the 'disease' in terms of increased costs, increased bureaucracy/oversight, etc. I'm not even necessarily opposed to those increased costs, bureaucracy, etc. in order to combat the possibly-smaller-costing waste and abuse, but it's certainly not as simple as "___ exists, so we can spend less by just not doing that."

> I use my bicycle far less than 5% of the time, so what does that say about bicycles from a global allocation perspective, and why should that change anything?

If you're looking for a transportation analogy, I think a far better analogy would be if there was an incredible shortage of rubber for vehicle tires, with possible allocations of each tire including either a bus that would be used ~24x7 for a large number of users simultaneously, or for a car that would be used by 1 person a relatively small percent of the time. And I understand that people would disagree about desired outcomes there as well. Also, what do you mean by 'why should that change anything?' - is your question about why someone might say allocating limited resources to a use that is used by large numbers of users simultaneously 24x7 is different than allocating the resource to something to be used 5% of the time by a single user?

(Also, how would the bike analogy work - what's the shortage of and what's the alternate use of the constrained item would serve a large number of users simultaneously ~24x7 if it wasn't instead being used for your bike for 1 person ~5% of the time in the bike example?)

> Also he has 2 kidneys and 2 lungs, while he could get by with just 1 of each, and there are people badly needing them.

Is that supposed to be an example of hypocrisy? Or why did you specifically type that up in your comment? Regardless, are people required to not be hypocrites in any other way for it to be acceptable for them to say something else is badly inefficient? Actually, I am not even sure any of your comment is an example of hypocrisy, unless you're saying that someone can't say a completely different thing is badly inefficient, unless that person is personally efficient in (all?) other unrelated dimensions as well (for example, RAM, while being inefficient in terms of kidneys, lungs, and homes)?

> You've changed the baseline. Altman said that people use all of the computer's 32G of memory at most

1. No, I think you changed it - I just re-listened to that section, and I don't hear any mention of "at most", nor any mention of "all of the computer's" DRAM, nor any mention of "32G" - what are the timestamps you are referring to? The only other piece he mentioned was that he was speaking in terms of "a global allocation perspective".

> Consider if I had a 32 GB desktop w 2GB for OS, set up to donate CPU cycles to a distributed computing project

2. The scenario you laid out seems incredibly uncommon - are you actually using a 32GB PC w/ 2 GB for the desktop and donating the rest to a distributed computing project, or are even you not doing the scenario you laid out? Are you commenting on HN using a ≤2 GB RAM OS w/ the rest donated? Regardless, the 2GB desktop out of 32GB + donated scenario seems like an incredibly uncommon one that is not at all representative of the norm. I'd guess a far more common scenario than that is a device that was bought but only got a little use before being abandoned, etc.

The US has by far the lowest spending (fed + state + local) among the major advanced economies in the world. [1]

The US also has by far the lowest taxes (fed + state + local) among them too; in fact, the US could have raised taxes by more than 15% and still been lowest. [2]

Regardless, if someone does believe spending should be cut, what specifically should be cut, and what % of the 11.5T/y [3] gov spending does it add up to?

[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/Ap...

[2] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/ap...

[3] https://www.bea.gov/data/government/receipts-and-expenditure...

No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income And there is no need for insults.

No, I don't know what you mean - is your objection that people who aren't from the Marshall Islands don't receive it? UBI going to citizens as opposed to others seems to be very common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income And there is no need for insults.

I'd replied mentioning housing because that was the comparison that the original commenter specifically focused on.

> By the same line of thinking, his SF home…

Isn't the view that people having extra homes used 5% of the time a very well-known and common criticism, and there has even been legislation enacted in a number of places to discourage or penalize such homes?

(For SF, it appears:

- Tax rates for >1 homes are higher under the Homeowners' Exemption

- There was also an 'Empty Homes Tax' but it was struck down by the court in Eric and Andrew Debbane v. San Francisco)

Your link is to the term universal. From the reporting, this payment goes to all citizens including children. Perhaps you could more clearly state your objection?

Multiple % of the population live on <$3/day.

This payment is 37% of the poverty line. Poverty has been reduced from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...

Multiple percent of the population lives on less than $3/day.

This UBI is 37% of the poverty line, and the % living in poverty has dropped from 7.2% to 1.3%. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997063042125181...

> please put back the meaning of words

Which word(s)? From the reports I've seen, it's available to all citizens, and it's one of the 2 kinds of UBI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income

Edit: LoganDark4 replied but I got an error when submitting my reply to them, so including here:

> Even the smallest crappiest studios in most areas exceed $800/mo. Then you also have utilities and food before you even approach comfortable living.

Multiple percent of the population in the small Pacific country we're discussing lives on <$3/day (<$90/mo).

> Universal basic income means something you can live on.… UBI means you don't need external support to sustain comfortable living. That's its entire purpose.

From the very first paragraph of the link you replied to: "If the level is sufficient to meet a person's basic needs (i.e., at or above the poverty line), it is considered a full basic income; if it is less than that amount, it is called a partial basic income."

>> Is there no “silicon in the world” available to anyone other than frontier AI companies?

> if you haven't seen the whole ram supply thing…

1. I've read about RAM supply, but I've also actually taken a look at shops and silicon is still for sale, so I am not sure how the claim is defensible - how are you quantifying it? And for "all of the silicon in the world"? And how much for non-frontier AI, and how much silicon for non-AI? (For what it's worth, Google AI says the claim is false.)

> demand they be the only place to run inference

2. I searched but can't find such a quote from any company - perhaps the quote was made up by a site in order to push an anti-AI viewpoint? Or what is the exact quote you are referring to? (For what it's worth, Google AI also says that claim is false too.)

1. Is there no “silicon in the world” available to anyone other than frontier AI companies?

2. Which frontier AI leaders are demanding they are the only place to run inference?

Most people who don’t want to do the things you listed can/will use the big, cheap services, sure. But do you really believe that people who want to produce ‘free’ copies of licensed software, or hack, etc won’t use open models, especially as RAM supply catches up with supply? (And even more so as long as open models don’t suddenly stop improving.)

The U.S. labs may try to prevent their LLMs to be used for large-scale replicating of all software, hacking, etc, but I don’t understand the view that those things are history - I think they will become incredibly commonplace, especially if there aren’t any cross-industry standards. Do you really believe that it won’t become more commonplace over time?

The amendment says:

> A cap on the tax is planned to take into account sectors with a high ratio of data emitted per euro of turnover, such as video on demand or video games.

https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/amendements/3210A/...

A (later?) English article: https://powerupgaming.co.uk/2026/10/31/what-frances-proposed... (My default expectation is terrible quality from sources I don't normally use, but this seems at least decent.) (The amendment explicitly mentions games as a sector with a lot of data relative to revenue.)

It's very impractical, agreed, and even USB sticks, etc. have carried viruses.

In this scenario, is the Network-Attached Storage attached to the network (and so theoretically vulnerable)?

It seems like the only “safe” option is a PC (+storage) that never attaches to a network, but that extremely limits its usefulness.

> Anthropic really dropped the ball on signaling that this was an unofficial third party tool

Had the tool been up longer than the 11 hours the malware was live? If not, then why would Anthropic try to get it marked as unofficial, as opposed to take it down?

Or are you saying that every author and publisher should request Cursor to mark their extensions on the Cursor vsx pass-through as unofficial?

I think GP’s objection to the claim that Cursor allowing non-Anthropic to do it for 11 hours was partly “an Anthropic problem.”

Cursor explicitly claims "Before an extension is shown in search or served as a download, Cursor runs automated malware and supply-chain analysis using commercial security tooling. Extensions that fail review are blocked. Cursor also monitors extension-ecosystem threat intelligence and updates its blocklist over time."

However, the bad extension was live for ~11 hours.

> Cursor routes extension search and downloads through its own marketplace proxy (marketplace.cursorapi.com), not a direct passthrough to Open VSX.

https://cursor.com/help/customization/extensions

> Cursor routes extension search and downloads through its own marketplace proxy (marketplace.cursorapi.com), not a direct passthrough to Open VSX.

https://cursor.com/help/customization/extensions