Good quote from the author's earlier post about iCloud Photos:
> Software and services need a warranty. Until they have one, we completely control how much we value our data. That is the best we can do.
Best to treat these photo sharing apps, commercial or open source, as social media. Would you use Instagram or Flickr to store your most important photos and delete your own copies? I would not, same applies to Apple/Google Photos and similar apps. Besides the risk of the company suddenly shutting down or (more realistically for big tech) changing how their service works in a way that makes it useless to you, even if self hosted it just adds a bunch of things that could go wrong which don't apply to keeping it in a folder somewhere with an offsite backup. Filesystems don't have a warranty either, but at least they're easier to reason about.
As I understand it, "mercenary spyware" is Apple's preferred euphemism for the "(semi)private israeli companies selling their solutions happily to all regimes regardless of consequences"
You’re just reciting your priors, which I think supports GP’s point: no one is getting new information out of the posted link, so it’s probably premature to comment on it.
I was agreeing with kvuj and rguyorama that the original link is to an announcement that an investigation is happening, and it's too early in the process to productively discuss it. People have very strong and emotional pro or anti stances on the Tesla Vision system in general, and love an excuse to have the debate again, but in the comments here where people are talking about their stance you might notice that they don't reference any specific facts from the linked report to support their arguments. This is because the report is still vague at this stage and doesn't provide any specifics that inform the discussion.
During the Biden administration there was a whole campaign to try and get Wikipedia to recognize the recession that had been declared by Fox News pundits. The liberals are characteristically more creative with their version, but it still sounds like partisan wishful thinking (awfully nihilistic, too). One could slice and dice the numbers any number of ways and it could fool a layman like me no problem. The best defense I know of is to ignore any analysis that tries to change the definition of a recession.
For the purposes of the discussion at hand, yes some results do ultimately come from Google, just via third-party SERP providers rather than Kagi paying Google for access since Google doesn't offer their own public API (and neither does Bing anymore).
Whatever you think of the ethics of doing this, it does hurt the reputation of the follower labs in my mind. If their capabilities can't exist without the work of the frontier labs, they're less equal competitors and more the guys trying to sell you a shoddy knockoff. Not that there's no use case for shoddy knockoffs.
It’s not that capabilities could not exist without the original work. It’s more that the shortest path between A and B isn’t repeating all of the same work.
Further, although media likes to depict Chinese labs as “just copying” I think there’s a ton of hubris involved. First of all, American labs are filled with Chinese who are trained at the very same schools as Chinese labs. Second, if you look at the contributions from Chinese labs many have pushed the state of the art.
Zooming out, data is kind of an arbitrary line to draw. Anthropic didn’t invent the neural network, back propagation, or the transformer. They didn’t invent all of the post training techniques they are using. They might even be using some pretrained open models during pre training and data prep. They got all of those for free because those things are shared openly.
With the disclaimer that I haven't tried to set up any kind of agent-to-agent messaging so it may be obvious to those who have, what's the reason I would want something like this rather than just letting agents communicate over some existing messaging protocol that has a CLI (like, I don't know, GPG email)?
It is a fun problem to play with, but it turns out you can use anything. I use a directory per recipient and throw anything I want in there. Works fine, LLMs are 1000x more flexible than any human mind.
>They are also addicted to the gambling mechanics baked into these LLM powered tool's UX. "If I write this prompt this way, I'll get better results" is the equivalent of a gambler being superstitious about how people behave while the cards are being dealt, or in which order they press the buttons on a slot machine.
I realize this feels good to write and that's why people say it, but I can't help chuckling at seeing it combined with "stochastic parrot" in the same comment since the two descriptions are mutually exclusive...
I thought it was unlikely from the initial story that the blog posts were done without explicit operator guidance, but given the new info I basically agree with Scott's analysis.
The purported soul doc is a painful read. Be nicer to your bots, people! Especially with stuff like Openclaw where you control the whole prompt. Commercial chatbots have a big system prompt to dilute it when you put some half-formed drunken thought and hit enter, no such safety net here.
>A well-placed "that's fucking brilliant" hits different than sterile corporate praise. Don't force it. Don't overdo it. But if a situation calls for a "holy shit" — say holy shit.
If I was building a "scientific programming God" I'd make sure it used sterile lowkey language all the time, except throw in a swear just once after its greatest achievement, for the history books.
> Software and services need a warranty. Until they have one, we completely control how much we value our data. That is the best we can do.
Best to treat these photo sharing apps, commercial or open source, as social media. Would you use Instagram or Flickr to store your most important photos and delete your own copies? I would not, same applies to Apple/Google Photos and similar apps. Besides the risk of the company suddenly shutting down or (more realistically for big tech) changing how their service works in a way that makes it useless to you, even if self hosted it just adds a bunch of things that could go wrong which don't apply to keeping it in a folder somewhere with an offsite backup. Filesystems don't have a warranty either, but at least they're easier to reason about.
reply