Matl

I knew there's an unofficial version for ARM. I meant more that the vast majority of AUR packages target x64 only because that's what 'official' Arch supports.

That being said, didn't know there's a RISC V effort as well now, so TIL.

Arch is famously x64 only?

With regards to sandboxing etc. maybe. With regards to packages? Official repos support signing and usually rely on maintainers with proven track records. AUR was a honor system and since some people are total basement losers, you can't rely on that.

Well, this kills a very useful feature of the AUR. It's like Wikipedia disabling editing. So I can see trying other things first before resorting to removing features, but I do agree it should have happened faster.

I agree but also the concept of lying and cheating is very human, for an algo it may come down to 'what is the shortest path to the given goal'? And the math comes down to lying and cheating.

Granted, this can probably be tuned for.

> Unless they're illegal immigrants flooding the West. Then it's acceptable to leftists.

What do you think the end result of making regions unstable such as by unprovoked attacks on Iran is?

> you think

Well, maybe I am presuming too much there.

ICE should be dismantled based on how it treats US citizens alone.

It's amazing how these people don't seem to get that the very fact it's an occupation makes basically everything Israel does there illegitimate.

If someone enters my house uninvited, I don't care what they have to say to justify themselves because they don't have a right to be there in the first place.

Also, Israel designates tents dual use.

Designating an AWS location very likely used for targeting assistance during this war on Iran is a very different thing.

You're supposing an event that there's no evidence for happening and that is on par with 'let's ban open source software because some open source software could be malicious'.

Let's not forget that as of now most models are like game cartridges i.e. they need a 'host' to run i.e. llama.cpp - they're not executable code by themselves.

I could see an argument for a security review prior to integrating a model into a highly sensitive industry/agency, but that is standard for any software.

It's certainly not an argument for banning open models because US AI corps don't want to compete with them.

> Suppose

By supposing, you can try to justify taking just about anything away.

> Someone please enlighten me what the actual argument here is, cause I can’t see it.

> The only thing a ban would do is protect the American market from further downward price pressure on inference, protecting VC investors in the short term. But thats also an admittance that the American labs can’t compete on merit anymore

That's the argument. To be precise the publicly stated argument is that they're attacking American providers by distilling. The real aim is to eliminate competition because otherwise Anthropic and OpenAI are non viable and the US views them as crucial for winning the 'AI race' which they see as putting whoever wins it on top in terms of warfare/economic power etc.

> So what is the issue here?

The issue seems to be the US only likes competition when it is winning. Markets in Asia are meant for cheap labor and resources, they're not meant to actually compete. /s

> Yes, while the Chrome/Chromium hardware decoding, or any other uses of the GPU, like WebGL, was always impeccable on Linux

Have you seen the massive blacklist Chromium maintains?

Fair choice but do you also boycott US companies assisting in the Gaza genocide and the unprovoked attack on Iran?

I agree, it's unfortunate the headlines seem to have become 'rewritten in Rust' (not a bad thing) and not 'vibecoded in a week without review' (a bad thing).

Right and what other product does Anthropic really have besides?

> parent is saying we cannot know

And my point is while we cannot know, it's not hard to make an informed guess as to their motivations i.e. there's some fairly obvious motivations here, not sure what yours is?

> It's hard to say what their motivation is.

Not that hard to say IMO, they basically see models becoming a commodity and see value in the applications on top of them. So if Alibaba Cloud is the best place to build applications on top of Qwen, why not give the model itself away?

For what is worth, I don't think Russia is on the same economic success path as China, so I don't think the argument there is remotely convincing. I am not saying it's the right argument, I am saying the argument might work on a large chunk of the population if their standard of living is better than it was in colonial times.

This is true, but of course ignores what happens historically when these societies open up more. They tend to get exploited.

Places like China, Vietnam etc. don't yet have institutions strong enough to withstand (Western) meddling. So they can either be stable and relatively prosperous, or (in their mind), poor and open.

If you go by example of India, China seems preferable.

The sad part is that in the West, instead of offering a good counterexample, we're increasingly 'inspired' i.e. Assange, Snowden, chat control etc. while lacking even the historical justification for doing so and having worse infrastructure.

> Killing people is just a side effect

That budget and wealth transfer requires the US Dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. A lot of the killing has to do with ensuring it remains that way.

From what I know, the 'defense' industry has their production cleverly across all 50 states so that they're seen as one of the few sources of stable employment for most, sadly.

I think they do. Maybe not specifically how much will it last, but the average person does understand nothing they buy last literally 'forever' and they would certainly have discovered with movies, music etc. too.

With physical discs however, you gain the ability to cheaply back them up, lend them, sell them etc. and 'someone' will always have a working copy of whatever you might want.

Not so with digital only media.

Well, that's the publicly stated reason. Is that really enough? Maybe, but I am slightly suspicious something else was promised behind the scenes.

I am saying they could have not said anything about it being too dangerous etc. and just released Fable as a new model once the safeguards were in place and Mythos to trusted orgs as they did.

Instead they choose to hype for months about having a model that's simply 'too dangerous to release'.

In other words, why hype it beforehand instead of just quietly add the safeguards they ended up with anyways and release then?

> Anthropic was correct in their assessment and early warning of Mythos's capabilities, and they did this rollout pretty well. They were not hype marketing. They were being genuinely cautious and honest.

So what prevented them from putting in the sort of safeguards they ended up putting in without hyping it for months prior as being so good, it's too dangerous?

What part am I misrepresenting, Anthropic CEO explicitly states he's ok with military use as long as there's a human in the loop[1].

He states the Iran school strike 'doesn't even violate our red lines'.

Can you clarify what am I misrepresenting please?

1 - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7DOQlIQxz5M?cbrd=1

> He's the one who led the choice to refuse working with the gov for surveillance or defense

This is false and just Anthropic being good at PR. He's happy to let it be used for airstrikes on Iran for example, just wants to keep a human in the loop. So the AI will say 'I am extremely sure this building (a girl school) is a military base' and the human will say 'I am being asked to carry out more airstrikes and who am I to question AI' and will bomb a school with Amodei then washing his hands.

They blew it by pretending to take some sort of moral high ground while their model was being used in Iran to blow up schools. I say they get what they deserve. I would have a lot more respect for them if they banned Pentagon use of their models outright.