InsideOutSanta

No bounds for whom?

Your implied premise is that private companies cannot impede others' freedom, which isn't true. In unfettered capitalism, only the largest corporations have the power and money to be free.

Thanks for pointing that out; I wouldn't have found out about it otherwise. I bought the 20$ subscription and have been using SWE-2 for a few days now, and it's actually good. I don't think it's Fable-class, but SWE-2 Max feels substantially better than K3 and on par with Opus 5 Max.

IMO, a great achievement.

Good lord.

Trust me, you don't want a CEO with "ideas."

So when people say "somebody else will buy that compute", they are correct, but they are ignoring that it will still cause a massive decrease in revenue generated by that compute.

If you're asking me what my point about "believing" is, it's this. OpenAI is losing billions every quarter. It's only staying afloat because it can still find investors who believe in its ability to eventually become incredibly profitable. But there are signs that this is starting to change (e.g. it's unlikely that Softbank will be able to find much more money to give to OpenAI). If OpenAI can't keep raising more money and can't IPO at the level they need (as seems to be the case, given that they keep pushing any IPO date forward), OpenAI will eventually run out of money.

I'm not sure how investors believing in things changes any of this, so now it's your turn to explain what the point is you're actually trying to make.

At any rate, I'm not sure it matters whose codebase it is. I'd even say that a shitty codebase might make for a better test.

If you go to a bank and get a loan, that is literally money that did not exist before you got a loan. People think that you are borrowing money that somebody else put in the bank, but that's not true. Banks can lend out a lot more money than people put into them.

That's already not the case today. If you sat me in front of an LLM and told me to figure out if I'm working with K3 or Astra, I could probably do it, but it would take some work to be certain.

The problem with that is that OpenAI can only afford to pay for the compute because they are burning investor money (and so are most of OpenAI's biggest clients). They are losing billions. If they stop burning money, nobody else will be there to pay for that compute at OpenAI's cost.

Sure, somebody will probably be able to use these GPUs, they just won't be able to pay nearly as much for them as OpenAI does.

In reality, it's just nowhere near worth as much as OpenAI pays for it. Inflating the cost of compute is part of the problem caused by the circular financing, and if (or maybe when) OpenAI goes, the price of compute will go with them.

You can't. Google will ignore robots.txt in some cases (e.g. "The REP isn't applicable to Google's crawlers that are controlled by users (for example, feed subscriptions), or crawlers that are used to increase user safety (for example, malware analysis)").

robots.txt is just a suggestion that Google loosely follows.

https://developers.google.com/crawling/docs/robots-txt/robot...

False dichotomy. Obviously, what OpenAI does is incredibly irresponsible. That doesn't excuse the LLM's behavior or make it "not rogue".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anthropomorphizing LLMs. Saying that LLMs "want" something, for example, is a perfectly fine description of their behavior and analogous to a human wanting something, in effect, even if they do not literally experience wanting things in the same way a human does.

Do you work for one of these companies? If not, you have no experience with any of the models that carried out these attacks, and your experience with publicly available models is not super helpful for understanding the behavior of internal OpenAI models that lack the guardrails of publicly available models.

Also, the lawnmower analogy is a worse way of understanding LLMs than anthropomorphising them. LLMs are not like lawnmowers at all. Lawnmowers never break out of your garden and into your neighbor's house and eat their dog because you've told them to be careful when mowing the lawn because the neighbor's dog pooped in it.

Google has previously tried to prevent scraping of search results using legal means, but courts correctly think that scraping of Google's search results should be legal, just as Google's scraping of the whole Internet is legal. This is Google's reaction to that.

Not that that's a bad thing. I absolutely loved the Surface Duo, it was my favorite phone until it stopped working correctly, and I hope other Android manufacturers take note of this, not just Samsung. It's just wild to see how similar this new Duo is to the original Duo.

Let me give you an example. Let's say you're building processes using the process management tool FooTool from the company BigFoo. You tell the LLM, "make a new process." A process is just an XML file, but BigFoo is highly proprietary, so the LLM has no examples of how to make one. No public documentation exists on the Internet, so it's not in the LLM's training data and can't be searched.

So you make a skill "make FooTool process" that explains what a FooTool process XML looks like, what options there are for initializing a new FooTool process, and so on.

Now your LLM went from "Let me spend five minutes looking at other stuff in your repo to find anything that tells me what I'm supposed to do" to 20 seconds and a working process.