While I believe that performance varies with respect to prompt, I have a seriously hard time believing that using the same prompt that was effective with the previous model would perform worse with the next generation of the same model from that lab and the same prompt.
You shouldn't have a hard time believing it. There are thousands of different domains out there. You find it hard to believe that any of them would perform worse in your scenario?
Labs are still really optimizing for maybe 10 of those domains. At most 25 if we're being incredibly generous.
And for many domains, "worse" can hardly be benched. Think about creative writing. Think about a Burmese cooking recipe generator.
Bruh, how do you evaluate a batch of 1000 jobs against a x model for creative writing or cooking recipes? It’s vibes all the way down. This reeks like some kind of blog spam seo nonsense.
The entire point is that you _don't_ for creative writing, vibes are the whole point, and those vibes often get worse across model updates for the same prompts.
I think mistercheph is right to be concerned. This bill applies to all "operating system providers", defined thusly:
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
Regarding penalities:
1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation, which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.
>This bill applies to all "operating system providers", ...
Not really.
>...for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.
So the OS has to provide an age signal to apps from a "covered application store" defined as:
e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.
(2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application.
It doesn't say "only if there's a covered application store present on the system". But maybe everyone in power will interpret this non-logically in exactly the right way that this doesn't become abusive.
Wouldn’t that classification apply to Linux package managers as well?
They are publicly available online services that distribute and facilitate the download of applications from third party developers to users of a general purpose computing device.
That may not be the intent, but it seems like it would still apply. Many of the “app stores” on Linux are just front ends for the package manager in some way.
I assume the people behind this don’t know things like apt or dnf exist, so it likely wasn’t considered.
There are a large number of things that the people behind this don't know about. That doesn't mean that they screwed up. It means that the law does not apply to those things.
Ah we should be happy about a bad law because it's enforcement mechanism is weak? That's twice-bad: undermines the strength and meaning of Law, and aligns Law with the bad.
When the law and it's execution are undermined and weak, it becomes the cudgel of fickle changing power, i.e. it is applied selectively and it means nothing to people except when they are being beat in the head with it, at which point they only regret having been caught, successfully undermining the social and political fabric of a nation.
Having a bad law with a weak enforcement mechanism isn't quite the thing to be boasting about you seem to think it is.
I'll gladly take that trade, either:
- They lose the right to their "intellectual property" and I'll accept that they owe me nothing.
or:
- They continue to enjoy "intellectual property" protections granted by the state, but the state subdues them into actions which are for the benefit of the public.
I'd be happy to make that offer to any of the parties that build closed ecosystems, but none of them will take the offer since closed ecosystems are almost always built with the intent of misusing the copyright system to create a state-enforced monopoly and bloodsuck value produced by real economic activity.
What a lame and useless doomer POV. Do you refuse to go outside because a lightning strike could kill you at any instant? Why let things that aren't in your control (yet) stop you from taking control of the things you can now?
reply