I think it makes sense to see it positively. If one wants a calculator, we have calculators. The whole point is reaching things that deterministic calculations either can't or don't in a reasonable timeframe.
What seems blatantly obvious does not always represent the underlying reality. This can also be taken as a chance to discover better solutions to a given problem than banning phones.
I think if that were the issue, they can say "We will maintain the same high quality standards which we expect throughout for all pieces". But that isn't what the article talks about, the article frames it as "standing up to the machine" and talks about how corporations talk about it. It ends on a John Henry comparison. Which seems not in line with the "We'll interact with it, but not have anything written directly by it" notion that this is describing.
Fine, I said metric in the original comment when I could have said basis or notion or perspective. But I don't think my interpretation is the unkind one, here. They wrote "it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer", and I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of being empty.
Really, a Nazi comparison? I said that I thought the narrative sucked and was undermining itself. The article was published and posted here, presumably for comment. Nobody said that their magazine should be banned or that they couldn't take some position, just that the position wasn't good.
Who said metrics? You are arguing against something you've made up so that you can grandstand. Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty is not a "spiritually rich" act.
Writing a moral into a narrative doesn't make it narrativeless. They're still saying something, and if what they're saying is wrong and missing the point, then just calling it a moral position doesn't make what's being argued any more real or the ideas any better.
They wrote which things they're concerned about in the article. They included things like "Capitalists say it will replace workers", which, if you're a magazine intending to provide your own perspective, repeating the capitalist narrative but then inverting it and saying it's bad does, I think, suck as a narrative.
This article is fairly standard financial news boilerplate. "Market selloff, thesis is being tested" is an article that gets printed roughly twice a week regardless of what is going on, and is a template that's been run thousands of times.
This is absurd and silly. Discovery doesn't go away because more new things are being discovered. This position only makes sense if you make an arbitrary cut point where some instances "don't count". If you were to go back to scientists or mathematicians several hundred years ago and tell them that one day science would be done by tens of millions of full time researchers around the globe, often working in teams, some of them might also bemoan the loss of the "hero scientist" as any commoner could now participate. But science and math have only benefited from this, and this has increased, not decreased, the beauty and wonder in these fields.
Your reasoning would apply just as well to computers. We have all kinds of things where the expectation is, or was, that you don't ask the computer to do things you don't want, and the times when that expectation has been eroded in favor of "the computer isn't fit for the general public" have been a mistake.
The problem with this view is that that isn't a "bubble". "Eventually" can support quite a while, especially when the investment is increasing revenue over time and the unit economics look good. The timeline point cuts both ways, and none of that is a subsidy.
Yes, definitely. The search for a way to root out some kind of ephemeral origin or quality besides what is reflected in the text is fundamentally pointless and doesn't improve anything.
Because there's a difference between explicitly targeting some outcome and attempts at that outcome being in the training data. There would be no reasoning to explicitly aim for this rather than, say, general SVG reasoning, especially since it would be possible for targeting this over other SVG creation to undermine general SVG ability. It's not impossible that labs are targeting pelicans on bicycles specifically, but every attempt at discerning whether they are has said that similar requests for SVGs that show other things (e.g., other animals using other modes of transportation, or just other SVGs in general) show similar SVG ability.
Groups desperate to prove an increasingly absurd suggestion are latching onto this because actual evidence of overinvestment or of broader correlated issues is thin on the ground.
It's the Vertex endpoint for Gemini models that's changing to be reclassified by OR as not ZDR, as I understand it. The email from them says
> Upcoming change to OpenRouter’s ZDR designation for Google authored models
> We’re writing to let you know about an upcoming change to how OpenRouter designates Google authored models for Zero Data Retention (ZDR) routing.
> Effective October 18, 2026, OpenRouter will no longer designate Google authored models as ZDR-eligible. After that date, requests that require ZDR will not route to Google authored models.
> Google’s standard automated abuse-prevention policies allow it to use safety classifiers to identify requests that may violate its policies and to securely retain prompts flagged for further review. Because this process does not meet OpenRouter’s requirements for a ZDR designation, we are updating our model classifications and routing controls accordingly.
> What this means for you
If your requests require ZDR
We recommend migrating affected traffic to another ZDR-eligible model before October 18, 2026 to avoid interruption.
> If you do not require ZDR
No action is required for your Google model requests.
> Our current routing behavior will remain unchanged during the 30-day transition period ending October 18, 2026.
> Read the ZDR documentation
> If you have questions or would like help identifying an alternative model, please contact us at support@openrouter.ai.
I would love to try it out, and the Gemini models had previously been some of the ones I'd liked best in an overall sense, but unfortunately their updated inference endpoint is no longer ZDR on OpenRouter (change takes effect on the 18th). I think this is one of the more unfortunate turns in AI development in 2026, as it seemed like labs offering it was becoming the norm last year, and Google had previously done so consistently.
I think it's unfortunate that this is the case and that the service has been treated unfairly in many regards, but c.ai has faced specific problems that other businesses in the space don't, and the basic service isn't going to be marketed towards the more revenue-generating segments like enterprise without making something different out of it.
> As an analogy, imagine the replicator as a slime mold or a swarm of fruit flies, which replicate over days.
"If you could simply imagine the thing we're fearmongering about as something you find disgusting, that would make it much easier for us to make an absurd and specious argument". Very transparent behavior. Adds nothing to the post, and not a sign of confidence in one's own arguments.
That's why I spoke of them in the plural. Obviously the possibility of a system hack (presumably) won't ever completely go away, but individual vulnerabilities as they appear in specific systems are usually tractable problems, especially if you narrow it to things that one wants solved rather than all possible vulnerabilities regardless of severity or accessibility.
Except that in this case, the possibility of something like this probably is worth it, because system vulnerabilities are solvable problems, while ignoring the ability to improve system efficiency is a static stance. A lot of things have driven up the price of groceries since that time. You mention "comparable or lower inflation adjusted prices", but this hides the fact that the inflation adjusted basket of groceries in the US is near inflation (105% vs a baseline of 94%), while the input costs to that supply chain (like labor, and diesel) have gone up faster. The efficiency isn't doing nothing, grocery prices would almost definitely be higher without it.
No. First of all, the expert consensus you're alluding to is a much narrower slice than you're making it sound. Secondly, it also isn't neutral rederivation, either. What you're mostly looking at is one opinion which is being passed around, based on a mix of hypotheticals and folklore.
I think it's probably a negative for the stock price when the CEO thinks his company shouldn't be developing its main product and believes wiggy and false things about what continuing development means. Investors can put up with a lot of things, but an erratic willingness to undermine core business activities is usually not one of them.
To add onto this, I feel like this has been happening a lot, where critics project backwards imagined claims or go nutpicking for random comments online to make something sound absurd and like everything is behind schedule and nothing is materializing, and then you can see other people (not necessarily the same people, the point isn't "look at these hypocrites") saying that it's all moving too fast. Both of these can't both be true in their strongest forms. I think what they have in common is that because they're relative measures to an unstated baseline, they're free criticisms you can throw at any development whatsoever, regardless of what is or is not turning up.
All of this line of reasoning in the second half is predicated on the idea that there's nothing besides the prompt, but that's an architectural decision that labs optimize for, not something inherent to the field or methods. It's actually fairly trivial to allow for unprompted or accumulated work, except that many people then get mad at it because "I didn't ask for it to do XYZ!"
Your insight years later is still something you constructed, it's a new story that you've told yourself, presumably without any new input from the writer, all of which you can do with any given piece of media. You can do that without the intent having been there on the writer's part at all, even, something which is fairly common to do.
That last part is what I just said. The original post is saying nothing aside from something that's already true of everyone, and has nothing to do with whether AI can or does make interesting things.
I'm also not sure that art is actually a way that humans talk to each other. That assumes that the point is delivering some information, but a lot of artists talk about it as a compulsion, or something they do for themselves, or as being about understanding the world. I would actually say that many would say that it's definitively not about audience reception. Simultaneously, audiences interpret things of their own accord all the time. Unlike when sending a message, art is often most fully interacted with when you're engaging with things that weren't put there explicitly.