jwitthuhn

Fortunately the corporations here lack the power to imprison people for saying things they don't like.

Apple also forces users onto a web browser that effectively has the same limitations as recent versions of chrome with respect to ad blocking.

They could easily resolve that by allowing alternate browsers, but choose not to.

That is a quote from the lead developer of WoW about how everyone asking for classic wow thought they wanted it but wouldn't actually play it. Then blizzard made classic wow and it was a huge hit.

The entire point is that it can't be reasonably enforced with any granularity. Rights-holders want it to be like that so a copyright win in a single country means something has to be taken down globally.

Dario's idea of an ethical focus seems to be keeping powerful models out of the hand of anyone unethical, which coincidentally is everyone except him.

Generative AI like LLMs and image diffusion models are perfectly capable of being deterministic. I have seen it repeated a lot that they aren't and that simply isn't true.

edit: to answer the second part, photoshop brushes are absolutely generative but I'm not sure they are AI.

I think people don't know what they mean and I have yet to receive a coherent response when asking such people what they mean.

As best as I can tell "Generative AI" is a common shorthand for "AI I don't like"

I'm quite curious about that claim that pitch correction is not generative AI. It literally generates a complete output waveform.

It is less secure though, and they are doing it in the name of security. People are right to call that out as bullshit.

Availability is a key component of security, and this is a 24-hour DOS on apps not blessed by google.

I have plenty of epithets for people who accuse others of lying based on vibes alone. It is not necessary or justifiable.

If models that fail the safety testing are banned, then asking for that testing is asking for a ban. That you believe any sane regulation would involve such a ban doesn't stop it from being a ban.

That is just the SDK, but there is an unofficial open source implementation of goldsrc.

https://github.com/fwgs/xash3d-fwgs

Surprised to see I partially agree. They are indeed ungovernable and that is the best part.

Not really, on the project I'm working on right now most of my longer prompts seems to consume somewhere between 300k and 400k tokens (input + output) and I find that both Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 don't seem to get lost with that much context. At least the results still look good to me.

I don't think I've ever pushed past 500k though, it may well fall apart at the higher end of what is officially supported.

Claude does the same when you hit the context limit, but the difference is that claude's context limit is 1m and Codex's is 272k now. Claude lets you get a lot more done before you have to worry about the start getting compacted away.

The text you linked mandates, as the first technical requirement, "An ADDW system shall determine when the driver’s visual attention is not directed towards the driving tasks and alert the driver through the vehicle human–machine interface."

Can you describe how you believe the driver's visual attention can be tracked by anything other than a camera pointed at the driver's face?

If no such other system exists, how is this doing anything other than mandating cameras pointed at the driver?

Why would physical copies matter for this? All physical games have to be signed by Sony anyways so it's not like a third-party can produce them.

This is true but the buyout happened in 1985. Servco Pacific has been in charge for longer than Leo Fender and CBS, the two previous owners, put together.

They did upload the wrong model but as of the time of writing they have not fixed it. Right now, 12 hours after they took the old one down, there is simply no model present in their huggingface repo.

Fortunately for us all Dario literally asked for this sort of restriction on model usage so we can be certain Anthropic are not victims here.

Same for switch 1/2. it even has a browser built-in so you can log in to wifi captive portals but you can't access it through any normal means.

It is not a backdoor if I authorize some other app to use that data, it is a front door.

Apple thinks users should not be able to make the decision about who can access their data. It is not more complicated that that.

Thanks for the correction, I had misunderstood that and thought it applied more broadly but it is indeed just "source code".

Given that, I'm glad to see something that protects software more broadly.

Good, Bernstein v. United States already established that software is speech. Limitations on what software one is allowed to produce are very blatant prior restraint.

And occasionally un-releasing them like with WizardLM.

Forks are still alive on github, so it seems unlikely microsoft did this to suppress the code. Unless they are wildly incompetent, which I don't want to outright reject as a possibility.

https://github.com/xiaoji235/bitlocker-bypass-tool-for-winre

Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to see a list of all the forks now that the main repo is dead, but you can search the phrase "A huge thanks to MORSE, MSTIC and Microsoft GHOST for making this public disclosure possible" to find more copies.

Yeah I've also found that models are good enough that the extra spend on premium models isn't always worth it, particularly for my small personal toy projects.

A $20 claude sub goes a long way when you plan with Opus and execute with Sonnet.

"One can point out that such electoral pitches are dishonest bullshit until one is blue in the face"

This is what I intend to do. To just let lawmakers get away with passing bullshit because "of course they will" is a defeatist attitude that I don't advocate.

That is why it is so important to be loud about this incredibly obvious disingenuous behavior. Make sure everyone knows the people advocating this do not care one bit about children's safety.

It is an admission from the writers that this law is unrelated to safety and people should very loudly and frequently point that out.

If OSes that don't verify the age of their users are a genuinely unsafe for children, why should they be allowed just because they are open source? That doesn't seem to mitigate dangers associated with age in any away I can identify.

For immediate revenue yes, but if you want advertisers to keep coming back you need to give them a good conversion rate.