mcherm

I don't think that's the real issue. The problems with billing and dashboards at cloud vendors are not new within the past few years, they have existed far longer than the LLM coding.

There is one little-discussed down side to ever shorter-lived certificates...

Haven't you heard? Under the new form of government in the US, random tweets from the President ARE government policy, superseding laws and any act of Congress.

The Supreme Court has blessed this new form of government, declaring that the President is immune to all laws, but retaining for themselves the right to reverse any tweet on the "shadow docket".

Does it? How do you know?

If they start excluding random content (eg: .git) without effective notice, maybe they AREN'T backing up everything you think they are.

Some companies are in the business of trust. These companies NEED to understand that trust is somewhat difficult to earn, but easy to lose and nearly IMPOSSIBLE to regain. After reading this article I will almost certainly never use or recommend Backblaze. (And while I don't use them currently, they WERE on the list of companies I would have recommended due to the length of their history.)

So you are suggesting that a private communications and messaging system that proports to offer reliable anonymity is a reasonable use case for more-or-less unsupervised development by Claude? Because that is just the sort of use case where I would NOT trust an unsupervised AI.

How does my attention, the time I spend reading news.ycombinator.com, pay for the site? I DON'T run an ad blocker, but I am not watching any ads here.

The significance of the changeover would be much more impactful if the chart showed a longer history.

It's the third sentence of the article:

> the district court ruled that using the books to train LLMs was fair use but left for trial the question of whether downloading them for this purpose was legal.

Many people are taking what I believe to be the wrong message here.

I believe the author's intent was (or should have been) to describe how THEY wanted to receive communication, not how EVERYONE should.

A skilled communicator will craft their message for the audience. Some want "just the facts" with no social lubricant. Others want the banter to build person-to-person relationships. Some want a quick statement of context for everything. If you can adjust the message to the audience you will be more successful at working with them.

I have begun including "how I want you to communicate with me" as part of my standard "introduce myself to new team members" talk.

A specific example will help.

Imagine I am working for a company and I discover they are engaged in capturing and transporting human slaves. Furthermore, the government where they operate in fully aware and supportive of their actions so denouncing them publicly is unlikely to help. This is a real situation that has happened to real people at points in history in my own country.

I believe that one ethical response would be to violate my contract with the company by assisting slaves to escape and even providing them with passage to other places where slavery is illegal.

Now, if you agree with the ethics of the example I gave then you agree in principle that this can be ethical behavior and what remains to be debated is whether xAI's criminal behavior and support from the government rise to this same level. I know many who think that badly aligned AI could lead to the extinction of the human race, so the potential harm is certainly there (at least some believe it is), and I think the government support is strong enough that denouncing xAI for unethical behavior wouldn't cause the government to stop them.

There are a bunch of reasons.

Perhaps their TOS involves additional evils they are performing in the world, and it would be good to know about that.

Perhaps their TOS is restricting the US military from misusing the product and create unmonitored killbots.

Perhaps the person (as I do) does not feel that "laundering people's work at a massive scale" is unethical, any more than using human knowledge is unethical when those humans were allowed to spend decades reading copyrighted material in and out of school and most of what the human knows is derived from those materials and other conversations with people who didn't sign release forms before conversing.

Just because you think one thing is bad about someone doesn't mean no one should ever discuss any other topic about them.

That's not an equivalent analogy. A better analogy would be to say I had a bank account and I told my bank to call up Joe on the phone when confirmations were needed. I still have the account, but I have fallen out with Joe. I want the bank to call somebody else, but they refused to do so, even though it's my account and I'm paying the bill for it!

No one who understands the first thing about this topic could possibly have read that web page and not realized that it was satire.

"Those maintainers worked for free—why should they get credit?"

"Your shareholders didn't invest in your company so you could help strangers."

"For the first time, a way to avoid giving that pesky credit to maintainers."

"Full legal indemnification [...] through our offshore subsidiary in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize software copyright"

The post claims (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that their customer owns the resulting code.

But that's not true!

According to binding precedent, works created by an AI are not protected by copyright. NO ONE OWNS THEM!!!

I think maybe this is a good thing, but honestly, it's hard to tell.

Being started? I would take that bet.

I'm all in favor of not accepting "drive-by changes". But every contributor to the project had to make their first contribution at some point in time. What's the process for inviting in new contributors?

At this stage, you are going to far in claiming that. So far, all that happened is that Meta's lawyers claimed it was fair use. They are paid to try every argument they can think of that might work. Just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will find it has any merit.

No, under US law charities and non-profits are typically eligible for some kinds of tax benefits but public benefit corporations are not.

Look, you can declare that it is a scam all you like. Trumpet statements like this one: "Large language models still hallucinate, and they still make boneheaded errors; they still lack a proper concept of reality. They often produce workslop. A recent survey called The Remote Labor Index found that they could only do 2.5% of human tasks, and that is a massive overestimate"

It won't convince me because I HAVE BEEN USING IT, and IT HAS ACTUALLY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Hype (whether positive or negative) can be extremely powerful, but eventually it loses out to reality. It is certainly true that there are some people who have overhyped AI. But it is not true that it "was a scam" or is anything less than revolutionary.

You wrote:

> I'm glad Anthropic is getting a taste of their own medicine.

I took that to mean that you support the Pentagon's threat which essentially IS to label Anthropic as a national security threat, simply because they wouldn't give the Pentagon the right to use Anthropic's AI to operate weapons or spy on American citizens.

Because ATProto is specifically designed to allow being NON-centralized. Unlike Pinterest. Yes, ATProto is new and most of the traffic is through a single site at the moment, but it is specifically designed to allow for that to change.

Anything other than fawning allegiance to whatever Donald Trump said most recently is "leftist" now.

> the goodwill they'd earned lately in my book was just decimated by this

That sounds absurd to me. Committing to not building in advertising is very important and fundamental to me. Asking people who pay for a personal subscription rather than paying by the API call to use that subscription themselves sounds to me like it is. Just clarifying the social compact that was already implied.

I WANT to be able to pay a subscription price. Rather like the way I pay for my internet connectivity with a fixed monthly bill. If I had to pay per packet transmitted, I would have to stop and think about it every time I decided to download a large file or watch a movie. Sure, someone with extremely heavy usage might not be able to use a normal consumer internet subscription; but it works fine for my personal use. I like having the option for my AI usage to operate the same way.

That may be true, but the underlying problem is not that the LLMs are capable of accurately reporting information that is published in a single person's blog article. The underlying problem is that a portion of the population believes they are infallible.

You write: > The goal of taxation isn't "take money from anyone we can", nor is it 'wealth redistribution', it's instead 'how to pay for joint projects' that all of society benefits from.

But I think the author of the comment you were replying to had a different goal in mind. I think their goal was "prevent corporations from getting too big".

We can and should debate whether that is a goal we should be trying to achieve, but if it is then progressive taxation for companies might be a way to achieve it.

Why does H3 use a nonoverlapping set of hexagons? A square grid would make it even simpler and faster to calculate. I am perfectly happy to believe that a hex grid works better for some reason but what is that reason?

No, not that I am aware of. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is my understanding that the majority of prosecuted crimes involving the Internet in the US are prosecuted in State courts, not Federal.

Making formal, public statements like this is a good start. It is certainly better than NOT making these sorts of statements.

Mostly, each county has its own registry. (In some cases, there is a statewide registry.) This works, because each parcel of land is clearly in one particular county.