DonsDiscountGas

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.

> Now, the popular way to tell this story is "the system is breaking," and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters. The system isn't breaking. It's stable, at a level of human cost we've collectively decided to put up with.

Reads like an LLM to me. "Load bearing" also used a few paragraphs down.

Check the article we're commenting under

Indeed, just like those idiots who bought into ozone hole, Y2K, and climate change. People have always said we had problems but somehow humanity is still alive, therefore those problems must have been fake (/s obviously).

Granted I've never worked on marketing campaigns, but I don't see how "our product might commit crimes and expose you to liability and do who knows what else and we're too stupid to stop it" is really a compelling message to potential customers.

As somebody who implements LLM tooling at work, in my experience it makes people a lot more skittish and demand a lot more in terms of safeguards.

Really we'd want a false discovery rate but that would depend on the prior.

Their philosophy is that false positives are much worse than false negatives (where "positive" means AI generated), so one would expect high precision and only medium recall.

Why bother talking about ideas when you can just insult people

People never really read documentation before. Agents do read it now, and they seem to understand LLM-written text just fine.

It has for Anthropic. Consumer vs enterprise though I guess.

Lack of releases relative to Gemini. Not that I expect them to take down the old versions, just unsure about new ones.

I'm inclined to believe it was an "accident" in the sense that no human being at OpenAI said "hey swarm go hack hugging face" but they're still liable for their software. Civil damages absolutely appropriate.

No more Gemma?

Amazon still probably make it via AWS, but other websites you may be right.

Indeed. Which is a shame because it's still pretty cool work.

This is the first I'm hearing of a model provider just providing a different model without telling you. Anthropic came close (and with a much better justification) but they disclosed their intention at least.

Yes people have been doing various immoral things for decades/centuries/millenia. That doesn't make it okay.

> the instant the companies can get away with it

LLMs have no lock in. Switching costs are zero. It's really not clear that instant will ever come

It's funny to me that OpenAI could be smart enough to build a super intelligence but stupid enough to let stuff like this happen. But here we are.

The thought experiment assumed one super intelligence, as opposed to many hundreds/thousands of midwits. Also he probably didn't expect the agent to credibly offer him a billion dollars, which is essentially what has happened.