aenis

We did the same with our apps used by a few hundred thousand people a day. We are a slow, boring company, so the port took about 4 weeks of engineering work, and maybe 3 months taking into account release process and change management. But in fairness, we had the first working version after a day as well. This was in February, too, with substantially less capable models, unable to do overnight runs.

That it was a dick move, I think there is no doubt about that. OpenAI wanted to scoop Anthropic, and the two guys working on the problem got caught in the crossfire.

Both OpenAI and the researchers know if the sessions in questions were subject to data sharing. Why neither the scientists nor OpenAI is clear about that is weird - it would seem at least one party has the incentive to report that. But even if their sessions were in training data sets its hard to tell whether it influenced the outcome. Those models are big, but are they big enough to preserve subtle, niche techniques enough to draw from them while solving a related problem? Probably nobody knows.

There is nothing even close to a proof. A lot of accusations, a lot of people ready with pitchforks and torches (sadly, also here on HN), but not a lot of facts.

Did the researches opt out from data sharing on subsidised subs?

Did anyone prove that their methods enabled OpenAI models to produce the solution?

For a discussion about science, there is almost no scientifical method applied to proving anyone stole anything.

And its reasonable to assume that if they did, in fact, opt out, they'd make it clear.

Most people do not understand that the main reason for the subscriptions is to give OpenAI and Anthropic the priceless, unique data that shows how the models are used, what people are building, how they are building, which solutions they consider OK, which they consider bad -- they purchase this data with cheap tokens. This is their only moat, really. If some really proprietary IP gets swept in the training data set its not really OpenAI's fault -- its the researchers'. Have something secretive? Dont fricking paste this into chatgpt. Duh!

(I'd definitely not think OpenAI/Anthropic ignore the opt outs, or ZDRs. All it would take is one whistleblower to get them into terminal troubles. And why would they do it? They are not in the business of scooping unique IP -- they are in the business of understanding how AI is used across a variety of mundane, day to day work of individuals and companies. Useless math problem is good (or bad, as in this case) PR, but otherwise entirely worthless for the labs.

8x RTX PRO 6000 or 4x Spark? Or 1x M5 Ultra 512GB.

The model is theoretically FP8, but really internally its mostly FP4 already, so there won't be a cut-in-half-but-almost-just-as-good quant coming for this one.

Yes, this is getting ridiculous. On both OpenAI and Anthropic.

Simple example. I am a CTO, and I want to upgrade our capabilities to perform automated pentesting. We see automated attacks of growing sophistication against our infra, and I want to be able to do the same to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do. I asked GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable to give me a summary of options. No dice, in both cases I was told I need to be an accredited researcher to get anything. A fricking summary of commercially available options is getting censored. WTF.

No, I don't think so.

I have opted out from data sharing, and when Claude asks me for feedback on a session it then asks if its OK to share that data with Anthropic.

I'd assume an opt out is an effective opt out. An opt out that is ignored by Anthropic is a breach of contract, not something they would do casually, esp. given the high turnaround and animosities between their own employees and ex-employees - and the labs. All it takes is one pissed off whistleblower to open a can of worms.

Occam's razor applies. The mathematician did not opt out from data sharing. OpenAI vacuums up all such data into training data sets. If OpenAI genuine does not easily know if a given session went into the actual training data set its probably due to the complexity of the data pipelines - not everything ends up impacting the model weights, after all.

Its not "in the future", its already here, right now. Sensitive IP gets processed on rented or local GPUs running open weight models. Sometimes its required due to data privacy laws, sometimes its because the people running those shops are not trusting OpenAI/Anthropic ZDR policies being observed. Normal, boring, US and EU-domiciled enterprises do this on a regular basis, and there is an industry of companies helping said boring companies set things up.

The paid subscriptions have opt-out for sharing data for training purposes. I think it's on by default.

Yeah, one of the last things anyone will ever read on the computer screen will be sth like

"Please help save the coral reefs from extinction"

...thinking... ...thinking some more with xhigh effort...

BOOM.

If you use their consumer subs, you get subsidized tokens in exchange for them having full access to your data. Those are the T&Cs. Have something secretive? Get a commercial sub with zdr.

(And if memory serves, there is also the opt out from training on consumer subscriptions). Its not plagiarism if you make your data available for the purpose of training their LLMs. It is you giving away your IP for some tokens.

I think we have less time and the only remaining limitation is the actual cost to run such hacking campaigns. It does not appear expensive, but is not free, and there is a LOT of things to scan for vulnerabilities.

The models are already here, and one can rent a GPU cluster to run such workloads at speed - no need to play with slow local machines. I'd assume one can host the thinking at an unsuspected public cloud provider, proxy the network traffic to some botnet to evade blocking - and the only thing remaining is time and cost.

I do wonder what tools exist for boring, legitimate companies to try and do the same to their own systems to find the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do. The paradox here is I can't run a de-restricted chinese model with the same tools that hackers are using - but I think enterprises actually HAVE to do it in order to stand a chance in preparing for the onslaught.

To me, someone with interest in amiga games and low level assembly ports, having that write up being done by hand wasn't load bearing.

Though I'd admit that using claude for a few hours every day this year desensitivized me to its prose :-)

Its just a tax and an annoyance, and in a very competitive and difficult economy.

I am already receiving notices from some EU countries that they will want sit downs on how we use AI, and apparently they have the right to demand access to detailed designs and source codes. Fine, whatever, a waste of time, but why would anyone start an AI company here, knowing that there will be bureaucrats focused on making that startup's life harder? Considering AI talent is mobile I'd think a lot of such talent will just hop on a plane and have their startup somewhere less overregulated.

Nope. The difference here is stamina. Those models never tire while working on an issue, people do.

And I doubt finding that bug cost more than $1k or so. Even if $10k. Thats nothing for a large department in a multinational company. Thats maybe 2 weeks of fully loaded costs of an engineer. Thats a single business trip across the Atlantic. Thats about two company issued macbooks, or one, if the company is nice. Nope. Not budget.

The safeguard filter is comically unintelligent. One of my side projects is a strategy game, and in that strategy game one player has a set of jokes, one of them referring to "biological minds". Whenever Fable reads this asset it immediately stops - because of the use of word 'biological', there is nothing else biological about that codebase.

And there is a bug to this bug, if the downgrade happens at close to full context window, there is no taking over this session with Opus -- happened to me twice: it throws some context window exceeded error, suggesting what fits in Fable context, may not fit in Opus's around the maximum. And then and there, an entire session is lost. In fact, there are two bugs, as /resuming such broken session attempts to resume with Fable, burning through tokens.

Oh well, I learned to be careful with the jokes around Fable.

I hail from the post-communist part of the world, and - given the choice - i'd err on the side of unethical builders such as musk, altman et al. Career bureaucrats are introducing a world where merit does not matter; unethical builders are still merit driven, after all, one does not build claude code without engineering and scientific skills, which implies attachment to physical reality, whereas building bureaucratic regimes is an entirely physical-reality-optional game.

No, but there is quite a bit of spectrum between 'never built anything' and 'only built things unethically'. I'd prefer to be governed by people who built something in their lives, and are not career bureaucrats.

Indeed. But if you are a large enough target, you will employ specialized external firms that deal with GDPR, or else.

Enforcement is thin, but every large company operating in the EU pays for legal advice. It's a racket, if you are a large target you will do well to pay for external firms that employ people who personally participated in the establishment of the GDPR regime. This is a tax on the European business - one of many types.

True, the Germans destroyed their own nuclear industry, and with it - its prosperity - entirely on their own. Specifically, Angela Merkel did that, along with lots of other horrible things that deprived the Germans of the future.

China and America's goals will not be influenced one bit by the EU bureaucracy. The only effect it will have it will make EU fall behind even further.

We'd need quite some changes in the EU to focus on actually winning at something again. Winning at the expense of some of the lofty ideals. I'd rather EU have a decent frontier model lab that plays to win, and steps on toes while doing so, than have a very elaborate bureaucracy that tries to prevent that from happening. Its no surprise the bureaucrats have the exactly opposite goals, and its sad that most of the population won't see the consequences of this conflict of interest until it's too late to do anything -- because the Americans and the Chinese have near AGI capabilities, plentiful energy sources, and, really, not a lot of reasons to remember where Europe is on the map.

By people who never built anything except bureaucracies?

I absolutely hate those bureaucrats, people who never built anything and just want to control, review, and develop their cottage industries of well paid lawyers one needs to retain to operate in the market. Same as with GDPR - absolutely no positive impact on actual privacy, but a lot of burden on everyone.

The worst part is, those people can't be voted out. Because of how EU works, the bureaucrats have an upper hand over the elected officials, and because of lavish compensation for the said elected officials, mostly bad people get elected anyway - those whos domestic careers have ended, or those whose parties want out of active politics, and somewhere "safe" where they can earn good money without causing any trouble. Thats a horrible system.

Hm? Should we ban volunteers? Doing unpaid work is sort of their thing.

Yeah, crucially, a lot of such projects never get greenlit.

Claude building stuff means a lot of things that everybody wanted to do, just couldn't allocate the attention or other resources - now get built.

Intentionally deferred.

...so, in the same ballapark as ddr5? :-)

Not to mention a lot of people who already have more than one max20 sub getting additional ones.

>Or not: https://github.com/Kunzisoft/KeePassDX/issues/2321

...and it characteristic the level of patronising arrogance in the issue thread

"This is normal. It is not recommended to copy passwords to the clipboard in any case, this mitigates this behavior and complies with new Web Authentication standards."

This does not even invite a discussion. Maybe some people run tight, safe systems and know what they are doing? Maybe some people never rely on a single password being the only thing between them an an account compromise? Nope. Some patronising guy knows it all, and will override what people want to do on their machines.