john_strinlai

it still seems exceptionally dishonest to claim that 3 sentences is 1/4 of the article.

>Microsoft had editorial control over this post, cutting sections and figures and reshaping how the impact is described before publication.

that is... not great. shame on microsoft.

its actions like that which shed light on why we get the nighmare eclipses of the world. pressuring a kid into handing over full editorial control of a disclosure is gross.

>then the last 1/4 go to talk about Tailwind's layoffs

how are you measuring length?

because tailwind is not mentioned until the very last paragraph, 1900 words into a 2000 word article. and it is talked about for 3 whole sentences.

it wouldnt be an HN thread without an immediate accusation of ai usage.

(ai or not, hn is supposed to be about curiosity and engaging conversation. reading a hundred of the exact same comment every day is not curiosity-piquing, nor does it facilitate good conversation)

i'm enjoying it enough that i would read more, do you have a recommendation of what i should pick up from him next? this was the first book of his ive read.

the fionavar tapestry by guy gavriel kay.

nearing the end. i've found it a bit complicated to follow in some spots (there are several 'main' protagonists and it switches between them without much warning or introduction) but overall it's scratched the fantasy itch.

(i suppose it's actually 3 books, but i have the omnibus version)

that was my understanding. i guess maybe they have evidence pointing to 5 distinct counterfeiting runs (of ~1MM stamps each) or something.

i know they like to throw more at the start for a better plea negotiation position, but 5 just seemed rather random here.

>Akram is charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make and sell counterfeit postage stamps, five counts of making and selling counterfeit postage stamp labels, and four counts of wire fraud.

i would love more insight into how they come up with the number of charges. why five counts of making/selling counterfeit postage stamp labels instead of 1 charge that covers all 5 million, or 5 million charges, etc.

you left out the best example of having no ability to shop around: internet.

do you want comcast or comcast?

im crying and throwing up everywhere. everything i use must be brutalist.

even seeing the linux penguin makes me want to punch my monitor and commit sudoku

i somewhat agree with you.

at the same time, it's really not cool for billions of dollars to be spent on research of how to best influence susceptible people (who would otherwise not piss it all away,) to piss all their money away.

ban the predatory advertising and maximally addictive interfaces and most people will be happy. you can still piss your money away if you want to. but it really shouldn't be one poor sap with an addiction vs. a trillion dollar industry trying to exploit that addiction.

>Not once has any of these predictions come true, the pace of progress has continued on it's exponential trajectory since ChatGPT first came to the public's attention.

do you think it will be exponential forever?

>I hear he can't drive; driving the boonies far from civilization is not that easy in the winter. He needs to buy a big shovel for the winter.

that's what helicopters are for.

-zillionaires, probably

>Anyone can burn/bomb a company and cause millions in damages. Doesn't mean they are worth that much

yes, that's my point.

and it absolutely extends to unexpectedly leaving. there have been plenty of times in my career that simply leaving without notice would have cost my company many times my salary.

mongodb ceo is not worth 6 billion dollars.

>Drunk individuals are not universally allowed to cry they were negligent due to impairment when charged (rarely) with first degree murder.

i am unaware of any case where someone was convicted of first degree murder from a drunk driving accident. my searches came up empty as well. are you able to pull one up?

>I doubt it is difficult to prove intent on the part of various frontier labs to create a PR campaign to goad the government into defending their non-existent moat around their products.

to successfully prosecute a cfaa case, you would have to prove that openai employees intended to hack specifically into huggingface. not that they wanted a PR boost.

i dont get why everyone's got a hard on for prosecuting this as a cfaa case. skip the cfaa case, go for gross or willful negligence + damages. it'll be significantly easier to hold openai accountable that way.

>Again how many times before intent is clear?

i have been an expert witness on several cfaa cases. the number of times a company is negligent is not a factor when it comes to determining the intent of each charge.

>This is HN thinking law is software.

this is me relying on my experience with these types of cases.

what you described is negligence. unless you can prove that openai specifically targeted huggingface and specifically instructed their model to hack huggingface, it would not be intent.

anyone pursuing this will have a much easier time pursuing negligence causing damage or something along those lines rather than confining themselves to the cfaa's requirements.

it is unclear to me why people want to use the cfaa so badly. not only would it be harder to hold openai responsible, but a shitty cfaa ruling could also bring along some undesired side effects for security researchers, which i would prefer to avoid.

>Just like boeing's execs didn't intend for their planes to fall out of the sky?

correct, i dont think any boeing exec wanted their planes to crash and then made specific choices with a clear goal of causing them to.

instead, they made negligent choices that led to unintended outcomes.

i am not exactly sure what this comment has to do with mine, sorry.

>If it happens 50 times and they keep doing shocked pikachu face at some point they look like the toddler who tosses their sippy cup on the floor and shouts "oopse!"

yes, they look very silly. but that's not how intent works.

openai is being negligent (willfully so, in my opinion). but i have seen no evidence that they intended to specifically hack huggingface. which is the part that the cfaa wants.

again, there are other laws and other ways to hold openai responsible. but the cfaa is a poor choice.

indeed, that'd be a better angle than a cfaa violation

>I don't see how they can still credibaly claim to not know that the computer they control was going to do that

that's not intent, though. that would be negligence.

>You just can't admit what's obvious because you likely think it's morally icky to suggest someone can be worth that much.

you keep saying this, but you have literally no idea who i am or what my morals are. perhaps you should not speak so confidently about things you know nothing about.

i dont find anything "icky", i just disagree with you.

>Also you have to consider that Zuck is probably paying him 9 figures to leave. So another person validating that he really is worth that much

you can't make up a random number then use that made up number as "validation" for your point.

cfaa heavily relies on intent for prosecution (hence why researchers arent typically locked up). it would be difficult to argue that openai intended to hack other companies.

there's probably better/more likely to succeed avenues to pursue rather than the cfaa

>It sounds like you just have something icky against someone being worth billions to a business.

there's many explanations as to why the stock dropped the amount it did. one of the least likely was that desai's leadership is worth billions of dollars. it has nothing to do with "icky".

a rational investor would not want desai to receive a ~20x raise to stay, either. i have no idea why you think they would.

the point is that the amount of money you make is not really tied to the amount of many you can cause the company to lose (on purpose, by accident, by departure, etc.).

or, in other words, looking at the 6B loss and working backwards to say that the CEO was underpaid at 52MM is nonsensical

>He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.

just need to spin the departure as being decisive and able to make tough decisions and he'll be back in the ceo seat in no time. especially if muse does well.

>it looks like his total stock comp was ~$52m which was a bargain considering his departure cost the company billions.

this same things can happen with any employee at any company and does not bolster your argument.

a $10/hr worker flipping burgers can take actions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. burger king foot lettuce guy probably cost the company millions.

i could cause millions of dollars in damage this afternoon (i am not paid millions).

>Consider writing what you read as you read it.

i would add a clarification for today's students: by hand.

typing doesn't appear to have the same power, at least for myself and my students that ive talked to about it.

yes, "not me X" means "absolutely me X", in gen-z form.

i typically interpret it as having a hint of embarrassment to it (e.g. "not me eating instant ramen for dinner for the 3rd time"), but not always.