superfrank

> If you’re copying or making substantially derivative works of them outside the terms of the license, you’re violating the copyright

I don't disagree with that.

What I'm saying is that the judge ruled that training a model using copyrighted books wasn't derivative. It was transformative, so the training wasn't a copyright violation.

He then went on to say that the way Anthropic acquired and handled that material was a copyright violation because Anthropic pirated and copied a large number of books that were not under a license like the ones you mentioned. The downloaded a bunch of books you would find at most bookstores and then actually purchased copies of them much later once they were accused of violation copyrights.

I'm just trying to make that clear because I've heard a lot of people who don't understand that the violation wasn't about the act of training or material they used, it was just how they acquired the training material.

I saw this bug mentioned on Reddit a few days ago when it first got reported and someone said it was also triggered by certain file names used in OpenClaw.

I don't think it's as sinister as you're implying. I think it's part of them disallowing 3rd party clients from using Claude Code subscription and someone making a bad assumption that certain files in a repo being a good signal that someone is attempting to bypass those rules.

It's still not a good look for Anthropic, but I don't take this as a secret attempt to sabotage a competitor. I take it as them trying to enforce rules that they had very publicly announced.

I don't have the exact ruling in front of me, but IIRC the judge pretty clearly said that training a model was fair use. IIRC, he declared it "quintessentially transformative".

The case by case basis was about acquisition and possession of the copyrighted material. Anthropic pirated a large number of books and illegally stored digital copies of many that they did purchase legally. The training being protected doesn't give them the right to violate copyright in that way.

Google, for example, purchased print versions of their training material and had a small army of employees digitize them and then delete the digital copies when they were done. That hasn't been challenged AFAIK, but would likely have been found to be not a violation. That's I think what was meant by case by case basis.

It's like if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them with my gun, that's very likely self defense, but if I'm not allowed to own a gun, I may still end up in trouble with the law.

Of course, but I never claimed that they would do that. At some point though other autonomous services will enter the market and Waymo will have to compete with them on price. Even if that doesn't happen (which seems incredibly unlikely), they're still competing against public transit and people driving themselves (or privately owned self driving cars). Not having to pay a driver means the floor where they can make a profit is lower.

If we're in a world where human driven Uber's are $30, you're right that Waymo probably won't charge $20 just to be nice, even if it only costs them $10. They might charge $20 though if their data shows that it would 10x the number of riders or if they're also competing with another autonomous taxi company.

IIRC, in SF they're slightly more expensive before tip, but having ridden in them in SF, LA, and AZ I've always felt they were cheaper. Over the long run, they will probably end up being cheaper from the wholesale perspective since eventually the parts and technology cost will come down with time and scale while human wages will continue to rise.

That said, it doesn't really matter if they're cheaper as long as they're comparable.

The cars are newer and nicer (for now), they're almost always cleaner since they can rotating one car out for cleaning doesn't mean the driver is losing earnings, they're better drivers than the average ride-share driver, you don't feel the need to tip, and I've multiple of my friends who are women call out that they feel safer in them because there's no risk of the driver being creepy (or worse).

I don't think Waymo is trying to win on price right now. I think as long as they just stay somewhat competitive on that front the other benefits will continue to draw in customers.

> When you use abstractions you are still deterministically creating something you understand in depth with individual pieces you understand

Hard disagree on that second part. Take something like using a library to make an HTTP call. I think there are plenty of engineers who have more than a cursory understanding of what's actually going on under the hood.

I believe you, but that doesn't mean the comment you're responding to is wrong. Large layoffs are like trying to doing surgery with a butcher knife while wearing an eye patch and a pair of mittens.

Since companies usually don't want to telegraph the layoffs too far in advance, they try and keep the people in the know as small as possible. That means the people making the decisions on who stays and who goes are often multiple levels removed from a lot of the people affected.

I'm really sorry to hear that you got let go and I hope you are able to find a new role soon.

Except when it doesn't. From the same article, Seattle and Oakland had supply increase 13% and 6% respectively and both saw average rents go up. Long Beach, CA and Santa Ana, CA both had supply increase by over 10% and saw rents stay basically flat.

More supply generally will help, but it's not a silver bullet.

I don't think you're a good representation of the average consumer

The second problem is already solved though. My wife just had to get her phone iPhone battery replaced so we went to the Apple store and it was $99 and the replacement took less than an hour.

The average person probably can't (or won't) replace an iPhone battery themselves right now, but getting an iPhone battery replaced is relatively easy and cheap compared to replacing the phone and yet most people still don't do it.

I feel people on here are forgetting that for a lot of people a phone is not just about utility. It's a lifestyle purchase that people tie into their self identity. That's why we see things like the whole blue bubble vs green bubble messaging drama that came up a few years ago.

> Most people I know only get new phones because their battery will no longer get them through the day

I don't disagree with this, but I also think it's because the battery often dies around the time most people would consider upgrading anyway. The battery isn't the only reason people upgrade, it's just a forcing factor.

If batteries normally last 3-5 years, I don't think we're going to start seeing most people keep their phones for 7-10 years. I still think we're going to see people upgrading around the 3-5 year mark. I would point to the current market as evidence of this. An iPhone battery replacement is somewhere between $50-$100 right now which is drastically cheaper than a new iPhone and yet we still see the 3-5 year upgrade cycle. Maybe making it something you can do at home in a few minutes will result in a few more people just choosing to replace the battery vs the entire phone, but I don't see it drastically changing things since a cheap alternative to replacing the phone already exists and yet we still see the 3-5 year replacement cycle.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I was going to have my team use this, I'd want someone to answer the following question

If AI is good enough to explain what the change is and call out what to focus on in the review, then why isn't AI good enough to just do the review itself?

I understand that the goal of this is to ensure there's still a human in the review cycle, but the problem I see is that suggestions will quickly turn into todo lists. Devs will read the summary, look at the what to review section, and stop reviewing code outside of things called out in the what to focus on section. If that's true, it means customers need to be able to trust that the AI has enough context to generate accurate summaries and suggestions. If the AI is able to generate accurate summaries and suggestions, then why can't we trust it to just do the review itself?

I'm not saying that to shit on the product, because I do get the logic behind it, but I think that's a question you should have a prepared answer for since I feel like I can't be the only one thinking that.

OpenAI will need to stop burning money eventually, but so does everyone else in the space. The longer they can do this the more squeeze it puts on their competitors.

I would call out though that I think there is one way in which this differs from the Uber situation. Theoretically at some point we should hit a place where compute costs start to come down either because we've built enough resources or because most tasks don't need the newest models and a lot of the work people are doing can be automatically sent to cheaper models that are good enough. Unless Uber's self driving program magically pops back up, Uber doesn't really have that since their biggest expense is driver wages.

I think it's a long shot, but not impossible, that if OpenAI can subsidize costs long enough that prices don't need to go too much higher to be sustainable.

I'm not sure it actually is. Free Gmail is limited to 500 emails a day, but Workspace accounts are allowed up to 2000, so this this spammer has to be using a Workspace account.

I've worked at a start up where the marketing team just had a `marketing@startup.com` email that was just like any other email in Google Workspace and used that for all marketing communications. Eventually they bumped up against that limit and a couple of engineers had to help them troubleshoot and there were enough blog and stack overflow posts at the time about hitting the limit to make make me think what they were doing wasn't uncommon.

When you consider the scale of Gmail and that this is almost certainly a Workspace account so they're mixed in with business customers, I'm not sure how much of an anomaly 10k emails a week actually is.

Don't forget, you also get a free ticket to go the remaining two members of Def Leppard play a Wednesday night show at a venue 40 miles away!

I don't use OpenClaw I tried but found it fragile and it's personality off putting. I then tried NanoClaw, but found the lack of communication channels limiting and could never really get it to create skills that felt solid. I recently just switched to Hermes Agent (like last week) and it's the first one where it didn't feel like I was constantly needing to fix it, so at the moment I'm happy with it.

What do I use it for? I basically just use it as a personal assistant and a way to centralize a lot of other automations that I have elsewhere.

- I have an automation that rolls everything on my todo list over to the next day at 11:59pm

- I have one that checks the weather and tells me if it's going to be windy in the next few days since I need to bring the lawn furniture in

- I have it set up so that I can forward it email with invoices and it will extract the data from a PDF and enter it into a cost tracking sheet

- I have it check my outlook calendar and tell me if there are any 1:1 meetings where the other person has declined the invite (since Outlook doesn't show that clearly and I'd often show up to meetings and sit for 5 minutes before realizing the other person cancelled)

Nothing I'm doing is life changing, it all could be done using other tools, and honestly, for anything important, I want something more deterministic anyway, but I kind of love. It's just a low lift way to automate away minor annoyances through a single interface that I can access from just about anywhere. It's far from perfect, but I don't use it for anything where I need to to be perfect, so I'm happy.

You're being snide, but I have first hand experience in this area. If random Flock employees can just pull up production data on a whim without being properly vetted, agencies, states, and the FBI will take this pretty seriously.

They don't take it seriously because of some moral, "We care about your privacy" stance. They take it seriously because if there's something that makes them look bad in there, they want to be able to control the narrative. If a Flock camera catches and officer doing something they shouldn't be doing, the agency/FBI doesn't want a disgruntled Flock employee to be able to sign in and grab that video and give it to the news.

The FBI. This sounds like a CJIS violation

The sector is heavily regulated. I worked at a company in the same space as Flock a few years ago and production access was restricted to only those who needed it when they needed it (automated system that would give access for a defined period of time and then revoke it). It also required getting CJIS certified which was a massive pain in the ass and required things like being finger printed and sending forms to every individual state.

If Flock is just giving everyone in their company access to production data it's not that the sector needs ,more regulation, it's that someone need to audit Flock for compliance.

I don't think he's saying people who do that right now will be prosecuted. I think he's just saying that it will become illegal so anyone doing it then runs the risk of being prosecuted.

> The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is if the government starts prosecuting it under existing laws without any changes. I don't see that as likely.

Fully agree, especially since Kalshi just caught one of the editors of MrBeast's videos red handed (he was betting on the "What words will MrBeast say in his next video" market with 100% accuracy) and while Kalshi banned the guy the DOJ has shown 0 interest in doing anything with that.

Yes. I know. That was exactly what I said in my first comment.

On individual tasks Claude and GPT are comparable (as shown in the first two graphs), but on multiple step problems that require more autonomy Mythos is far better (as shown in the third graph).

This is the exact wording from my original comment

> So with that said, I think the graph under the "Cyber range results" is the important one. The ones at the top show that, yes, Mythos isn't too much better than any of the existing models on well constrained problems, but when the models are given ambiguous challenges that require multiple steps it's much, much better than anything on the market.

Can you explain where you're seeing that? From what I see, the first two graphs have OpenAI models above Claude models (including Mythos) on the Technical Non-Expert and the Practitioner evals. Mythos now beats Codex 5.3 on the Expert eval and Opus was already on top for the Apprentice one although now Mythos leads there.

So, even including Mythos, OpenAI still has 2 models on top for the 4 evals listed.

I'm pretty into prediction markets and have some strategies that make me small, but consistent returns.

I think timing is the missing piece of this. Just randomly betting no on everything likely isn't going to give good results, but if you tied in a news API and just bet no on anything related to a major story right after the news starts picking it up, I would expect you could make a solid return.

This article reinforces something I've heard a lot of people say for a while now and what I've personally felt. Claude and GPT are fairly evenly matched on any individual task (GPT might even be a little better), but Claude is far more autonomous.

So with that said, I think the graph under the "Cyber range results" is the important one. The ones at the top show that, yes, Mythos isn't too much better than any of the existing models on well constrained problems, but when the models are given ambiguous challenges that require multiple steps it's much, much better than anything on the market.

I think that's why there's been such a big deal made out of Mythos (well, that and marketing). If Mythos really is so much better than the current models at just working autonomously to find security issues then it becomes much more realistic that someone with deep pockets could just spin up an army of them running 24/7 and point them at a target.

Axon, on the other hand, does have a decent sized Seattle presence.

I also have both and also use Codex as my daily drive. I still vastly prefer it to CC both for the quality of the code it writes and much better limits, but in this last week, I feel like it's gotten much dumber as well. I normally bounce back and forth between 5.3 Codex high and 5.4 high depending on the task and I've started finding so many mistakes in 5.3 Codex's code which is a major change from even just a few weeks ago. 5.4 high still gets the job done, but even there, I feel like it's taking more steering and input on my part for even simple tasks.

I think you're mostly right.

This round of layoffs was telegraphed at a month or so ago. It's all related to banks getting spooked and pulling funding for their massive data center project and the OpenAI deal being on the rocks.

So, I don't think it's really about their product being good enough, it's more that they've bet the company on data centers and it's starting to look like they just don't have the skills to execute on it.

I'm not an expert, but I can't see how they truly go under in the way Enron or Theranos did. If they did hit massive financial trouble the issue wouldn't be that their technology was bad, it would just be that they didn't have enough runway to get to a point where they could make the tech profitable. Someone with deep pockets would step in an buy them up before they went to 0 under the belief that they could last long enough to make the math work. Microsoft has a huge vested interest in keeping them solvent since they own so much of it already. Amazon clearly wants in after this last round of funding. I also wouldn't be surprised if Musk tried to buy it given that xAI seems like a bit of a shit show and I can't think of a better way for him to assert dominance over Altman than to take a company that Altman almost bankrupted and make it successful.

I feel a bit wacky even saying this, but I just started re-reading Team Topologies last week because it's starting to feel like the whole orchestration pattern only works reliably when roles and structure are clearly defined.

Mainly because Martin Fowler is part of their C suite

I agree that it's marketing material, but that doesn't instantly make it garbage. I've been reading their quarterly Thoughtworks Radar for a while now and it's clearly put together by people who understand the industry.