rufasterisco

Looks like your great question doesn’t have an answer, but looking at the routing strategies things get even more confused, since the proposed ones tend to rely on extra llm calls to determine which model to pick.

The nice thing is that it makes sense for specific setups, less conversation oriented.

As an example, you need to classify batches of data, and have many fine tuned models. Or you need to do speed to text and need to pick which whisper to use.

You can write your own strategy, in that case an harness with subagents would be able to leverage this, picking the right model and then keeping its session sticky, but overall the lack of concern for caching points towards use cases where you do not gain much from it.

Also try fine-tuning small models and see how they perform.

https://archive.is/CzfHj

I’m not saying Meta is not eager to syphon data from users, but I don’t see how this happens via this specific product.

There are many reasons for critizing him over things he is responsible for.

Never been a fan of mob lynching.

They could have written “ Island’s government says no denial given…” and it would have been equally true.

for example in gaming context, if you need an answer below 5 seconds, they are the sweet spot

Overall, openAI can sit on a mountain of money and bet mobile phones are the final form factor for human/AI interaction, as they have been for human/internet.

Or deploy some of that money and figure out whether that is true.

It’s also about creating an environment for those features to emerge, without being constrained by someone else platform, that could natively embed it at any time, and (probably more important) app marketplaces.

A signal for opportunity is also given by Apple’s inability to give their users Siri and Google sitting on transformers while OpenAI grabs the chatbot marketplace.

Also, anything they build does not cannibalize their other product lines.

There are lots of incentives for them to try out and figure out features on the fly, which arguably also happened with the IPhone (app store).

This has emotional/psychological aspects (it feels less like LLMs are replacing you), as well as practical ones (overall complexity is bounded by what the dev brain can understand/grasp).

A dev work becomes more and more about reliability, signing off safe software with a litmus test: “I will be on to handle this code failure as if I had written it”.

All the above points towards keeping tight control over some level of abstractions and delegating others.

The essay from Zuckerberg

I am assuming the reason companies switch to them is not price or tech. US cloud providers have the advantage on both.

Selling EU companies data would mean destroying trust over their main selling point, not to mention incur on EU wrath.

Feels like living one whistleblower away from doom.

I refer to fully EU clouds, parent list includes US clouds that do not need bags of money, Clouds Act in enough.

Hold on.

I accept all the rethorical apocalyptic stuff, it comes with the title and each of us can have an opinion.

But “move fast and break things” is Facebook motto, and when it come to sociability, society at large, and politics, I you cannot say that.

Facebook/Meta merely breaking B2B SaaS?

It’s not really about “Meta is bad”. It’s recognising the fact that social media, spearheaded by Facebook has changed society and politics.

Some like it some don’t. I don’t want to enter a culture war, but can we agree that with Meta the “object in question” is not just a SaaS? It is sociability, it is society, it is politics?

This guy is an associate professor of politics at Princeton University.

How can you advocate for future policies over AI while at the same time misleading on the tech revolution that has shaped the past, what, 20 years?

What is being taught in those classrooms?

They run kimi3 on an “unsecured” sandbox, which had access to GitHub.

Kimi somehow knows the repo. It clones it. It finds the solution.

The hack? Using git?

https://blog.frontier.security/chinese-model-kimi-k3-breaks-...

But open source thrives, is free, and we are not the product.

In theory redirecting ads money towards users, could be a path, in practice it seems the economic value is not there.

For example

> The poor could exercise their lawful rights as successfully as the sharp-elbowed middle classes do today. Yet it threatens to become a tragedy of the commons. If the state is overwhelmed and cannot function, everyone loses. When 20th-century governments created broad rights, they had the noble ideal of making citizenship meaningful. The public would be heard in consultations, get information under transparency laws and win redress for maladministration from a panoply of ombudsmen, tribunals, commissioners and judges. But these analogue systems assumed that few people would have the time or temperament to pursue their rights to the bitter end; and that of those who did, few would have the money to pay for a lawyer.

Seems like the implicit admission is “the system was staked against the poor, now that is not anymore we call it broken”.

Maybe I’m wrong at assuming this is also skewed towards people with less financial know-how, or easy access to an accountant, but here it is:

> Britons under-claim the benefits to which they are legally entitled by as much as £20bn ($27bn), or 0.7% of GDP, a year; if everyone gets their dues, the public finances will wilt.

Even more so:

> Money should be part of the solution. Britain could charge a fee for freedom-of-information requests, as other countries do. So could employment tribunals, which should also be more able to award costs against opportunistic claims.

I am not familiar with the inner workings of British administration but the tone of the article makes me feel AI as a democratising force is depicted as dangerous because it works at achieving a noble goal: equality in opportunity of interacting with state.

And it turns outright dystopian when

> The most important task is to act faster and more radically on remaking the state with AI.

Advocating for a fast and radical adoption in embedding AI in taking decisions over citizen rights is the opposite of what I would consider sound judgement

If you make it one where loss of trust leads to immediate loss of revenue and forces you to take the user side on all matters, well then all features are there to improve and maintain trust.

That said yes, put in those terms it makes sense, one thing can be true under a financing model and false under another one.

Can you please get hired by Wired? It would really help me address some trust issues.

To be honest, I still don’t know if no one can or cannot afford to make a Myst games anymore but I think at this point I will just accept the answer is

I mean, if residential proxies are tools used to DDOS websites, why is Google advertising them? And if you have Google ads for them, can we really say “ah, if we only knew who these guys are?”.

I was up to date on noyb, but not aware that actually companies are moving at this speed and size.

Thanks all for some great resources

Then you report a crime and send the logs. And maybe report to some politician that is tough on crime. And you are not alone.

I am sure you follow through, Pls check also my other comments.

Laws without enforcement are meaningless, without jurisdiction they are less effective.

Maybe yes, some poor guy will find a letter that says he needs to pay 50 USD or EUR to some faraway country because the puzzle app in his tv has weird ToS. Or whatever, a cease and desist letter? A “you are part of a hacking circle please uninstall this app” letter, signed by a judge?

I don’t advocate for people getting thrown in jail, I just think that the whole “residential proxies” issue might be a charade that would not last longer if citizens and businesses would claim rights instead of play victim.

I also really dislike grasping for a tech solution because I don’t want to start to mine crypto to read an article or to depend on some “free” cloud service to host an open bug tracker.

It just feels so weird: why is it that no-one is doing it? I feel like I an one “comment away” from someone explaining to me how naive I am, and yet it’s never coming.

In whatever country they are.

I am not saying this is the magic bullet that will make it all go away. Some will, some will not.

Enforcement’s aim is not to completely eradicate crime: make it anti-economical for the majority and it’s a good deal enough.

Go to Berlin and torrent a movie: you will be fined, for a few hundred euros. Can you VPN and get away with it? I suppose so, but your average Joe is just not going to do it: why pay 10 euro per month on a VPN and risk? Just rent it.

DDOS is also, in general, a criminal charge. What would happen to prices once you get a few inducements? If it’s a crime and enforced, what are the roles of App Stores that let users download residential proxy? Are they also committing a crime? Residential proxy can be used for legitimate purposes? I don’t think that line of defence worked well for Pirate Bay, no?

And yes pirate bay is still around, some scraping will always be there.

Well, this is also an insult.

Cleanest way I read this is seeing how basically none of it makes any sense for someone coding as a hobby, or in any non-business context.

This is not an article about coding, it’s a promotional piece for business stakeholders.

Not that I don’t trust the statement, I just would like to know more.

This is not a tech problem. This is about what should or should not be legal.

Nor it’s a question of having time to implement solution X or Y.

If someone attacks you yes, you should have better security but you also need to have legal recourse, or it will never stop.

Ddos is already illegal.

I am not a lawyer so don’t ask me for exact resources, which vary by country anyway, but stop treating scrapers as an inescapable force of nature.

This is not only unfair to legitimate users having to pay.

It also needs to explain what actually happens when the Ddos succeeds (I know, you are talking about scrapers, but what’s the difference really?). Does that mean that the attacker just gets to shrug it off.

Don’t take my statements as facts, I just want to outline a few reason I could come up with that show a purely technical solution might not be enough.

Akin to “just use Cloudflare, it’s free”.

Yes it works but why conceding defeat and say “oh from now on you depend on a business to publish a server”?