duplessitous

Right, but even then, why would we not discuss noise pollution?

The water figure folks cite is wildly manipulated, it really confuses me why a known piece of misinformation is so routinely used. Water usage for global data center cooling is under 30B gallons of water. You only get to the 300B number by including the estimated water required for the power generation. Data centers are the only technology where we include estimated water usage for power generation under general water requirement. And even with that fudging, global water usage by data centers is a magnitude less water than just the leaky pipes in the United States.

There are much stronger points to be made without resorting to misinformation. I think points around zoning + noise pollution is something that everyone, besides our most ardent AI stan, can get behind. Every pro-ai person I know are all pretty happy to say that data center should not be built in residential zoning

> The mean air temperature on the upwind side of the facility was approximately 42.7 °C, increasing to 43.5 °C in the neighborhood near the eastern boundary of the data center campus on the downwind side. The observed ΔT of approximately 0.8 °C extended roughly 500 m downwind

Seems like we do observe heating but a much smaller average delta T than the title would hint at; I didn't see a max distance they evaluated over, seems like 500-1000m was their search window from their text. The next paragraph discusses how one of the sites they compare to is a relatively lower average temperate than the rest of Phoenix. Not really convinced by this methodology. Seems like doing something in a flat field with an array of temperature sensors would be a much more robust way to look at heating effects over some reasonable distance. Plenty of data centers fit the bill of flat and semi-isolated, curious why they chose these sites to look at

Thank you for providing the text that reaffirms my statement. If you have the time to copy and past someone else's text, you should take the time to actually read it

No one ever said they didn't want images, this is a non-sequiturs

It specifies that these are not condos, these are homes on lots. "Normal" people live on properties with a yard, not apartments

I guess us "Normal" people prefer to discuss all relevant information and not just post jaded comments that defy reality

>50% of the US population live in single-family, detached houses. It is one thing to be combative, it is another to be combative and wrong. "normal" people live in detached homes

I did need to walk away that speaks more to my frustration with certain forms of communication (online, not anything in this thread). I am a horrible remote only worker because of this, I am trying to improve it but am lucky for now as I am in-person

You're right again about GLM 5.2 being purely post-mortem, I didn't realize that till I read the cnbc story. OpenAI, whatever they have, cracked em like it was nothing. Egg on my face, I really need to read my own articles better. Thanks for following up and educating me on this, another good reminder that I need to improve my ability to steel-man written text

I don't think you and I need multiple different threads open when we are clearly at odds. This is no different from our other thread, I think it is clear there is nothing of value to continue when I am getting pinged with a summary of your previous comment in a different place

"Rapid proliferation of hacking capabilities may make experts safer, but organizations and individuals who don't know to use AI, or won't, or buy AI protection from scammers, or whatever will be left vulnerable."

Which just means that they're fucked when closed AI hacks them. Something that has actually happened. This isn't argument against anything other than reality. Have a day

"My reading" ... "No source is cited, but I'm fairly confident it's correct"

Regis, what is demanding proof while literally making things up and ignoring what actually happened?

Great, i was wrong!! Thank you, I was genuinely asking for a source in my first reply, and then you hit with "My reading" and saying it was a "skill issue". I'm not going to have a productive dialogue with someone talking in memes and being rude

The point to be made: closed source AI refused to help them fend off an attack form another closed source AI. What is the argument for closed source here other than hoping you get on some program wait list? Either way, I appreciate you correcting me; I am not trying to "win".

"HuggingFace did not seek access to Claude Mythos or OpenAI's equivalent program. They probably could have had access to these models for defensive purposes if they'd done it properly."

HF released a statement and made it clear a closed source model specialized in cyber security refused them. They stated they had to use open source. What model is specialized in cyber security, closed, and frequently denies users access other than Mythos/Fable and 5.5Cyber? If not these two, what was HF referring to? It sounds like you have a source, I would like to read it.

fwipsy is right, cnbc has a story on this. they only had fable. I still think this is horrible for closed source, get on a list or else, but i was wrong

"You can't refute an entire class of possible outcomes based on a single event where it went the other way."

But Dario can dream up and entire class of outcomes based on the zero events that have never gone his way? Convenient.

The OpenAI incident is singular and HF was clear, it went exactly how I wrote it: a closed source American AI decided to perform corporate espionage and the only tool available was open source AI from China

"I tend to agree that model capabilities will favor defense over attack, but I think there will be a lot of disruption before that equilibrium is reached. If cybercriminals or state-sponsored actors are able to scale up attacks quickly, many orgs with less sophisticated defenses will be caught by surprise."

We literally just saw an advanced model from openAI commit a cyber crime. I can't take hypotheticals that ignore reality seriously and it shouldn't be lauded as some higher form of thought

You can put lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig

"Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models."

---

"We should crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations"

"All sufficiently capable models, open and closed, should go through mandatory safety testing"

These are in tension with advocating for open weight models. Not direct but enough that it calls into question the first statement. What is the testing criterion? How do you pass it? Is it a government body that approves a pass fail or a global body? If it is government, and boy does it seem to be, how do you disambiguate MASSIVE corporate lobbying to set up the safety testing in such a way that the boys in blue are let through and all others are barred out of safety concerns?

My concerns aside, much of the soft-points being made are non-historic

"But I don’t agree with the letter’s assertions that open-weights models necessarily make it easier to develop safeguards or that broad access to capabilities necessarily helps defenders more than attackers. It seems at least as likely to me that the opposite will be true."

It doesn't mater what his opinion is. The fact is that an advanced, closed, American AI model hacked another company. The only defense was open-source AI from China. We aren't in a vacuum, we have real world examples now and these statements are counter-factual.

There are a number of bad arguments people can make by removing as much information as possible until the two things resemble each other. The ability to make a bad argument shouldn't be used as an inspiration for your own

> We are all regurgitation our own experiences and knowledge to some degree

Feel free to debase yourself but leave the rest of us out of it. This flagellation done by non-experts has to be the saddest part of the llm craze these past few years. The eager willingness to paint yourself as no more than a machine pointed at a problem is a sign of the times.

LLMs don't have experiences, they have training data + test time compute. The only similarities to be found require stripping away all nuance and meaning from a conversation. Refusing to seed purely biological concepts to machines, such as experiences or emotions, does not make LLMs less impressive or less useful. If anything, it makes them more interesting

the laptop class isn't the one illegally hiring and hiding millions of aliens such that they can undercut US wages and make them selves exorbitantly wealthy. embarrassing and classless behavior, go back to reddit

Seems unlikely they adapted anything from K3 given the timeline of releases, similar to how K3 was obviously not distilled from fable

It goes beyond my job but that is my fault for narrowing it down. Even day to day shopping at random stores, I have never seen this gen-z stare or any of the other terms we assign to them. If they are bimodal, which they very well could be, the competent mode is clearly dominant where I have lived

We went through twenty years of millennials being this or that, how none of them work, how they are moochers. Every generation gets called lazy and dumped on by the previous generations; as far as I can tell, it is mostly bull shit. I have yet to experience anything extraordinary about gen-z that I don't see in gen-y, gen-x, latchkey, boomers, greatest generation, etc.

Maybe younger gen-z or gen-alpha like you say are truly messed up, I think we have data coming out of schools that support that, but I have yet to interact with them as I don't have kids myself. Everything I have said is inherently anecdotal and no more important than what you've seen

Sometimes I worry that this whole gen-z stare thing is just millennial avocado toast under new management. I work with a ton of gen-z'ers, I think they're great and have never once experienced this gen-z stare thing you hear about so much online. They're hard workers, attentive, and less phone addicted than my latchkey parents.

I mean if you want to get back on the topic of this thread, it has nothing to do with what you just said. The thread started by discussing AI distillation and this was your initial comment, just to get us back on track

> Our biggest geopolitical rival that's been threatening a hot war also distilling the things we build is not a good thing

They didn't distill Fable, it is impossible on any timeline. So where do we go next, the start of this thread is a complete dead-end as it is asserting a falsehood

This was the comment i responded to so we can get back on track to that comment if you'd like

> I think the major destabilizing force is the country that has been building the infrastructure for a hot war over Taiwan for the last decade while simultaneously blatantly funding the conquest of Ukraine.

We are refusing to aid Ukraine and actively antagonize their leader. We are kidnapping leaders from other countries. We are bombing civilian infrastructure. We are the major destabilizing force, not the one planning a hypothetical invasion

Despite withdrawing from our role on the world stage, we have in no way adapted isolationist like policies. We kidnapped the leader of another country, we are bombing Iran with impunity and will begin striking civilian infrastructure as a response to terrorist within that country, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/07/22/trum...

China didn't make us do this any more than they made us bomb civilian fishing boats in South America. We are a major destabilizing force at the moment, China existing does not somehow negate the actions we take of our own free will.

Refusing to acknowledge our role in destabilizing the globe at the moment is a level of infantilization that I, and many others, find unacceptable. We are all adults, China is responsible for their role and the US is responsible for its role. A social media campaign is not forcing the folks in Washington to drop bombs on Iranian civilian infrastructure, the jack asses in Washington did all of this on their own