> They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees.

You may not be old enough to remember this, but that's exactly what they did in the 2000's

There's a lot more 23 year olds to this time around. I don't think you can intimidate them down this time.

They didn't exactly intimidate them down last time either. Piracy decisively won the war on piracy.

No, they won. Piracy stayed at a microscopic level rather than becoming the usual way people got things. It stagnated, and maybe shrank. That's why they don't want to go into the piracy stopping business, it's a waste of time and money for them when they could be going after and negotiating with AI.

All TOS essentially boil down to "we owe you nothing and can change the product at anytime to anything we want at our sole discretion"

Obviously it would be unreasonable to accept such terms without further context. The further context in this case being that Anthropic will maintain Claude as an AI agent and seek to improve it's performance. What is at the heart of this issue is whether or not Anthropics recent A/B testing violated that context. Not whether or not they violated the TOS (they didn't, obviously)

Ultimately that just sounds like within their own TOC, they were just working on getting the best operational results.

If you wanted something more deterministic write it yourself or get it verified, all hosted llms as far as know does neither.

While not being particularly knowledgeable in such things, I would presume the shrews.

A whales muscle needs to optimise for efficiency and oxygen storage to allow for extended deep dives and continuous use. Compared to a shrew whose muscles would favour compact size, low mass, and fast reactions to permit quick getaways.

My interpretation is that they built a simple virtual machine directly into the weights, then compiled a WASM runtime for that machine, then compiled the solver to that runtime.

That's more or less what I got, also, but it's hard to tell. What a very annoying article, in its vagueness.

> Which I would find "cute" if the database contained an equal amount of reason. I am perennially irritated that "US/Pacific" which is an _official_ name of a time zone _as used_ by the relevant time keeping authority, is called "backwards."

This assumes that every point on earth has exactly 1 governing body and that a significant majority of the people agree on who that governing body is and that the governing body gives a rats ass about what time it is. Or that everyone in a region agrees on what time it is. Or that ccTLDs are sufficient to unambiguously cover the entire earths surface.

The time zone database isnt just a record of "official" decisions regarding time, it is a record of what time a population thinks it is. There are geographic overlaps, cultural overlaps, pants on head stupid overlaps. It exists to try and translate between somebody somewhere some when giving a time and date reference to any point in history to whatever time system the user may choose to believe in.

Your solution is insufficiently complex to solve a problem of this complexity.

https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b...

> Or that everyone in a region agrees on what time it is.

And how does the existence of the tzdb solve this problem in any way?

> Or that ccTLDs are sufficient to unambiguously cover the entire earths surface.

The user can still pick whatever they want. Just as they can now. The user can resolve ambiguity for themselves. Unless the tzdb decides unilaterally that their politically organized name for their timezone is somehow "wrong" and must be moved to the "backwards" file to be removed entirely. In which case they must accept whatever ambiguity the tzdb has created for them. "US/Pacific" is unambiguous. "America/Los_Angeles" is not.

> Your solution is insufficiently complex to solve a problem of this complexity.

You need to solve one problem. Publishing official tz information. If you have extended needs, then by all means, it's a computer, do whatever you like, but for the overwhelming majority of the population of earth, they need one function.

"What time does my government think it is because that time controls when things open, when I'm late for work, and when official paperwork has to be filed."

If you want a "whimsical" database that correctly gets timezones right for certain Japanese islands during the war, then you have that, but honestly, what general use case is there for this?

Its not transparent to me? What are they trying to do?

Deputize prediction market providers to force people to self incriminate à la KYC/AML laws today

> self incriminate

well, if they weren't doing something that would've otherwise been deemed illegal, then why would they consider it self-incriminating to have to follow KYC/AML rules?

If you haven't broken the law, why would you be willing to come down to the jail and breakfast in a cell each morning?

only if you equate following a set of rules to being in jail.

Do you follow road rules? Why don't you apply that jail analogy to that?

You sound like a helpful world citizen. The other problem the US has is that it is illegal for a US Citizen to pay a bribe but there's no realistic enforcement. Luckily you can help solve this. Whenever and wherever you travel you can keep some forms with you and every time you are pulled over you can fill them out with the police in quadruplicate so that each of you can mail them to Washington. At some later point the US can try to cross reference and determine who didn't mail theirs and then whether anyone was actually under US jurisdiction during the incident.

The right to a fair trial fundamentally requires the government to do 100% of the job of proving you guilty, and it shouldn’t force you to generate evidence against yourself while going about perfectly legal things

Yes! Nixpkgs straddles both worlds, like a system package manager it provides a way to install packages and their dependencies. However, like most language package managers it also imposes a locking mechanism so that every input into the nix expression* is locked to a hash, the mechanism is recursive and handles multiple versions of the same package in parallel.

The recent(ish) concept of "nix flakes" means there are 2 related but different mechanisms for achieving this but the end result is the same.

* In the land of NixOS everything is a nix expression including the system packages, configuration files, install image. It's all locked to hashes of upstream sources and is in theory, fully byte-identical reproducible.

You can, and it might make things a bit better. The only real way I've found so far is to start going through file by file, picking it apart.

I wouldn't be surprised if over half my prompts start with "Why ...?", usually followed by "Nope, ... instead”

Maybe the occasional "Fuck that you idiot, throw the whole thing out"

Of course they did, in what world would they not have? You can't get any of these companies to take a single person-minute to look at an issue that affects you. However no problem putting a small country of people to work invading, reviewing, and annotating the shit out of your privacy.

Ya know just today I was thinking around a way to compile a neural network down to assembly. Matching and replacing neural network structures with their closest machine code equivalent.

This is way cooler though! Instead of efficiently running a neural network on a CPU, I can inefficiently run my CPU on neural network! With the work being done to make more powerful GPUs and ASICs I bet in a few years I'll be able to run a 486 at 100MHz(!!) with power consumption just under a megawatt! The mind boggles at the sort of computations this will unlock!

Few more years and I'll even be able to realise the dream of self-hosting ChatGPT on my own neural network simulated CPU!