> I suspect the CCP would ban US models if they didn't need to distill them to make their own.
I'm pretty sure they do, at least officially. But obviously the distillation and API proxies used by Chinese uses are unofficially tolerated and even exploited.
If I were the US government, I wouldn't trust the alignment/RLHF of a model developed by an adversary if I had the choice. Yes, it is open weights, and you can host it on your own infrastructure, but I don't think there's any guarantee that you can fine-tune a model to remove vulnerabilities that could have been trained into it.
I realize that non-US nations could ask the same about the US. All I will say is that there are consequences to failing to nurture a competitive tech industry - even Mistral is basing their newest models on China open-weights models. Unlike the EU, the US government is fortunate to have a choice.
In the case of Poland, though, the post-war situation had more to do with Stalin wanting to punish Poland for interfering in Ukraine, as well as put more distance between the core of the Soviet Union and Germany, by seizing Polish territory in the east to give to the Ukrainian SSR, but in exchange and to weaken Germany, most of Prussia in Germany was seized and given to Poland, with the attending population transfers. In any case, with the Warsaw Pact, any revanchist sentiments that may have remained in Poland weren't going to get off the ground.
He might already have a main account but intentionally doesn't want to use it. I've noticed on X that OpenAI employees tend to post a lot more regarding their employer on their main X accounts than Anthropic employees do.
Who cares about your opinions about what number of PRs is right? They want to make more PRs (particularly to a monorepo), they need a new VCS.
Even if they weren't making a lot of PRs, Github has been melting down enough this year that they've probably encouraged customers like Anthropic to move off.
> It turns out explaining concepts while leaving little room for different interpretation is hard.
This pops up as one of the annoying aspects of LLM writing, at least for coding models. They are always saying things like "this test only establishes this, not that." Much of the time, what they say is either obvious, or you get to thinking "maybe the test should establish the other thing as well."
The free models for ChatGPT, especially without login, do very little reasoning. You should at least log in to set any level of reasoning above Instant, which uses virtually none.
No, that is the only thing that makes the ICC justifiable under the anarchy of international relations. If a leader of a nation unilaterally revokes the treaty submitting themselves to the ICC's jurisdiction, that's a harder case, and I'd support the ICC going after that nation's citizens if they commit other offenses.
But if a nation decides not to submit to the ICC, then it's up to the UN Security Council to go after them, and the Security Council was set up intentionally to only allow punishment of leaders where every major power can agree. The Security Council at least tries to work with the reality of international relations, whereas the ICC in this case is way out of line.
But the crucial point that makes the ICC work is that a country needs to submit to its jurisdiction. Once they went beyond that, they destroyed the entire legitimacy of the court. Also, they refused to arrest Putin even after he was sanctioned by the ICC, despite Russia being a formal party to the Rome Statute, so they're either hypocrites or cowards.
In this case, the US and Israel were never parties to the ICC, so the ICC was never neutral with respect to them. If they had submitted to the ICC, I think your point would be valid.
I sympathize with the ICC judge's plight, but they already violated international law by issuing an arrest warrant for a citizen of a nation that isn't a party to the ICC. Yes, I'm aware that they justify it because Palestine is a party to the ICC, but Palestine isn't an internationally-recognized state for better or worse.
If cookie consent dialogs have been going on for as long as they have, can they really be called malicious compliance at this point? Seems like people believe that is the actual intent of the regulation at this point.
The models produce both Lean code for formal verification and a traditional-style narrative proof. Like the general long-form output of frontier models, the math papers produced appear to be generally correct technically, but written in an ungraceful and sometimes hard-to-follow style, so they are often polished by a human mathematician as of today.
Why would society fund mathematicians if they decided to become a guild that hides secrets? They could pursue that as a hobby, but they’d end up like the coders who refuse to use LLMs - rapidly becoming irrelevant and a bit sad from an outsider’s perspective.
I can have Astra run a large-scale infrastructure migration 24/7 (much of the time waiting for results), completing it in weeks or even months faster than I could before agentic AI.
> the current supreme court seems perfectly willing to throw out decades of settled law on an ideological whim, and actually, for that matter, happily interpret very clear congressional statutes in very odd ways
Fortunately or unfortunately, the Supreme Court has always been willing to do that. This court has been overruling decisions of the Warren Court, just as the Warren Court overruled decisions from the Lochner Era.
Iran is essentially finished at this point - they no longer have control over the Strait of Hormuz, and oil is rapidly flowing through the strait (to say nothing of the oil already exported via other pipelines, or the impetus the war gave to accelerate pipelines under construction, such as the Iraq-Turkey pipeline).
But you weren't going to ask the LLM, and now you know something you weren't aware of. Seems no different than someone reporting what they found out in a Google Search, as long as they disclose that they used an LLM (as long as they used one that actually searches the web, but pretty sure even ChatGPT Free does that these days).
Nah, Jevon’s Paradox says that cheaper tokens will mean increased overall energy consumption.
If we can’t even build data centers, the least disruptive industrial use possible, there’s no hope to reindustrialize the US or anywhere outside of China.