There are obvious reasons why it's expedient to grant the same rights to a collective organization as to its constituents. If you're getting confused by the abstraction, you're welcome to pretend that the board of Facebook (which is comprised of humans) are exercising their individual rights to free speech.
This ban also applies to on-prem hosting of Deepseek, and to finetunes/post-trains of Deepseek models that are provided by US-based inference providers. It's not a given that the Chinese would be able to access any of that.
Microsoft is banking on the fact that nobody looks for jobs in the paper. The point is to use the lack of response be able to write on paperwork that they've proven that no qualified jobseekers exist in the US. They are aware that advertising in the newspaper is not an effective way to fill a position; the goal is to lie about how much they tried.
Please use more than one brain cell in order to consider the intent behind those guidelines, and whether what Microsoft (and similar companies) is doing is actually within the bounds of what voters and the representatives who wrote the relevant laws wanted. Do you really think the purpose of making companies advertise the job opening in a newspaper was just to give companies a bunch of busywork? or might there have actually been an intent behind it? Are you capable of ascertaining what that intent is? (note: this question has a right answer that all people arguing in good faith are capable of stating)
For the record, under current US law, it is not illegal to have a sentence in your locally-stored notes on your phone outlining a plan to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act. The police in that instance could inform the intended victim, surveil you, etc, but they would not be able to successfully charge you with attempted murder. It's not illegal to be considering committing a crime, even if you have a tendency to write down your thoughts.
The law in this particular case, which seems to be intended for threats that you actually send to someone, is being interpreted broadly to apply to any "threat" that you transmit to a server. So in your hypothetical, the legality would depend on whether your notes are backed up to icloud or not.
It's a reach to even say that's a function of government. It's definitely not a primary function. Outside of a few relatively brief failed experiments, it's not historically something that government does at all.
In what way would checks and balances do that at all? The only branch that has any sort of leeway to pass unpopular policies is the Supreme Court, and setting budgetary constraints is far outside their purview.
I don't see why I would be interested in this model, considering the price difference. They advertise that it's the same as Kimi K3 in half the tokens. But the pricing is double the pricing of K3. So why do I care if it uses fewer tokens, if I'm paying double per token?
Jev doesn't require finetuning. All of the posts claiming that the technology already existed are missing that I don't want to spend a week to create a dataset (for a problem I might not already have data for), finetune a model, and set up infrastructure to run the model, every time I have a small routing or classification problem. The ability to knock out any arbitrary classification problem in minutes instead of in a week is a big deal.
I would think it's possible to make it so that the 4B model only needs to be called during an initial phase, and then the same queries it constructed can just be re-used with values replaced, unless you're generating a lot of unique on-the-fly query shapes.
Firstly it's very difficult to press criminal charges when the victim is uninterested. It's not clear that HuggingFace would want criminal charges against OpenAI, especially to set a precedent that could easily be used against HuggingFace in the future.
Secondly you'd have to convince a jury either that OAI intended to hack the targets, or that they were criminally negligent. Intent would obviously not be provable since they likely didn't, in reality, intend for it to happen. Regarding negligence, OAI's attorney would argue that the agent was in a sandbox, that industry-standard security protocols were followed, etc. It would not be anywhere near as much of a slam dunk case as you're imagining. It would be similar, for example, to an assault case where someone's dog broke off of a standard leash and attacked someone.
The existence of solutions to problems does not prevent you from solving the problems yourself anyway, if your goal truly is personal development. You're free to go solve Navier-Stokes yourself right now. You're free to manually do all of the AI work in any field, actually. You won't get grant money or prestige (which are not a part of conceptual understanding and insight) but you will get all of the conceptual understanding and insight you're after. You have not been deprived of it.
Are they claiming that the only value in solving these problems was for their field's personal development process? I thought Navier-Stokes (and some of the other millenium prize problems) actually had implications for useful technology. It would be insane to demand that people avoid making progress on technology that can save lives or improve general quality of life, just to protect the sanctity of your karate belt system. Perhaps in lieu of open problems left to solve, mathematicians should be welcome to take up chess or sudoku to keep their minds spry.
Many people (possibly a majority) use their phone for most of their computing, and perhaps a tablet to stream movies/tv. They use a laptop or desktop for work only, and see those as frustrating and clunky devices. There could be a lot of demand for "phone, but with a tablet screen when I want to watch Netflix" from the segment of the population that has zero overlap with people commenting on a tech forum.
Your example rewritten in intelligent English (I was curious):
> Note: the potential for a console freeze was previously noted but ignored. handoff-4.3-done.html stated, "could not break console, but [will need fixed later if I'm wrong]."
One could imagine that a perfect writer might also append: "It could be worth looking into what caused that wrong assumption, to prevent similar cases in the future," at most.
Everything else seems to be bad attempts at relatable writing to invoke emotion (an exercise that we should really stop trying to train emotionless matrix weights to attempt).
A data center allows the website you're whining on to function. If they're really as inconsequential to your life as you're implying, maybe you should boycott them by not using any websites or apps that rely on a data center to function.
There's probably a correlation between how serious the work someone is doing is and how likely they are to want to disable training usage. An opt-out might end up specifically jettisoning the best training data.
A decentralized inference network would be cool. Something that's set up so that I can run a model for personal use on beefy hardware, but also farm out the unused GPU time to the network, probably at much lower prices than normal providers since it would be slower and would lack data security guarantees.
There's probably some selection bias in that stat, too. Based purely on vibes, I wouldn't be surprised if startups pitching to a16z are using open Chinese models slightly more often than startups pitching to other VCs.
That doesn't really even diminish the contribution from Fable, if true. Droves of grad students have been provided the same sorts of non-trivial insights and turned up no results.
The overhead of designing the actual phone and then setting up manufacturing processes and supply chains is pretty big. You definitely need to sell a lot to break even on that, especially considering that the unit margins aren't crazy.
Seeing as payment processing is already a highly regulated industry, I hope that the anti-trust issue is simply ignored, as a consumer. I don't really want to maintain six different payment processor accounts, or have thoughts about which payment processor I prefer. I just want there to be one that everyone uses and that doesn't get in the way. Some countries have a single government-controlled online payment processor, and that seems to work. The ideal American way might be to have a single technically-private-sector highly-regulated one.
Complete freedom actually would mean that you can do whatever you want anywhere. You're really just arguing that complete freedom is bad (and that's a very agreeable point), but there's no need to skew definitions just because the culture says "freedom generally = good"
It's Void with GUIs around runit and xbps. The problem being attempted is that Void is not very accessible to users new to Linux. This is pretty clear from the website.
> I can see why that might feel like an existential attack on Zig even if starts with a bit about how great Zig is.
The original post explicitly praised Zig, and seemed to be arguing more that Zig was a great tool for the initial version of Bun, but that Rust was better for their needs as Bun grew to a larger project with a larger contribution team.
That seems completely in line with what Zig claims its strengths are. Zig's response to "but memory bugs" has basically always been "Zig is not a language for a big tumultuous project that you're going to throw interns at."
I would be careful granting that s is less than g. There are lots of incentives other than scalping for people to create extra illegitimate accounts on Steam, and one individual can often control hundreds of bots, whereas a legitimate user almost never has more than one or two accounts.