I think this is mostly compounding confidence at play that unlocks your mind to be more fluid when faced with a task to do/problem to solve that actually requires skill (not just following a series of known steps). It’s like public speaking (unless you have really bad stage fright) you generally will give a better presentation if you really know your stuff, or at least will be less nervous allowing yourself to get into that flow state.
I kinda felt like this was coming so mid last year I built a local rig with the top of the line parts I could afford at the time lol (rtx5090/ryzen9 etc) now I just need to build out my inference setup (sadly m3 ultras r insanely expensive now) - I have a feeling they will try to lock down usage of open source LLMs too. I don’t get how token moat can exist if local inference rigs can be built out and serve open source models locally for nothing (besides power cost).
What’s the purpose of licensing requiring though things though if someone could just use an open source model to do that anyway? If someone were going to do those things you mentioned why do it through some commercial enterprise tool? I can see maybe licensing requiring a certain level of hardening to prevent prompt injections, but ultimately it still really comes down to how much power you give the model in whatever context it’s operating in.
I circled back to this, The only mechanics I can think of and I’m not sure if it’s really even really a thing (maybe someone can chime in) is that market makers buying shares to cover their calls or something along those lines? How does one even really trace this type of transaction?
Can you elaborate on the mechanical point you mentioned? And by someone needed collateral, does that mean whoever it was bought ORCL at that time to hold as collateral? How do you even figure that out?
I am building a new rig after years of solely using a MacBook, and reading all these horror stories of windows 10/11 I am just gonna go with Ubuntu. I may dual boot with windows but only if really needed.
Yeah that’s what I’m understanding is the case. That’s why they’re harping on no known (unreleased) vulns. But it’s kinda funny, a lot of times bugs that fall under this category are constantly shuffled around/not fixed because there is no public pressure to address them.
What was the reasoning behind this change? Isn’t R&D something we’d encourage to be a tax write off since it reduces the cost of well.. R&D? Or is R&D not as important as I’m thinking?
So why couldn’t one make a malicious iot device/tool to do just that? I’m kinda confused on the need for access via some other exploit. (I have little domain knowledge on Bluetooth) - when you say scan/spoof/attack any near by device, is it ones that the target is already connected to? Sorry for dumb question