Sure, I know that on an intellectual level. But I will say, I find these reports quite unsettling to read due to the extreme specificity. Especially since some of the examples they chose to include clearly aren't terrorists and just sound like... regular scientists doing their 9-5 job.
Like I know Google can read any of my emails, but I also don't see them do monthly blog posts describing intimate details from each email they found in one guy's Gmail inbox who their algorithm flagged as "maybe possibly kinda sketchy: 70% confidence"
Ah, that makes way more sense than Anthropic's (probably deliberately misleading) insinuation that Moonshot has been burning millions of dollars in Claude API credits by swapping in a slightly better but infinitely more expensive model just to trick their users.
I get those A/B responses chatting in Gemini fairly often, and I really don't think I'd feel deceived if I later learned one of the choices was actually from a competitor's model.
I don’t think it was misleading, deliberately or otherwise. Did you read the report? I hate to call you out like that but I think you can only get that impression if you only read the above quotes. That’s not the insinuation I get at all. It’s specifically under the “illicit distillation” category. It’s never framed in anyway but as a form of distillation.
I think they are pretty fair and explicitly say “Distillation itself is a legitimate training method […] Distillation is commonly used because it reduces the resources needed to achieve more advanced capabilities”. And go on to say their definition that makes it illicit in these cases.
And, also, they almost certainly __were__ tricking users and sending their data overseas.
They mean distillation is legitimate when labs use one of their own stronger models to train a smaller one. They certainly aren’t advocating for PRC labs to distill Claude for open weight models.
Is this belief falsifiable? Consider e.g. the fact that Daniel Kokotajlo left OpenAI due to his concerns even though it meant leaving equity on the table.
Same, I'm also just barely old enough that a lot of the wall maps in elementary school were from the Cold War and remember thinking the USSR was like 1/4 the world's surface area thanks to the Mercator projection.
My teachers had to remind students so many times that the size for Greenland was just way off but it was hard for that to sink in for a kid used to seeing it every single day.
Man, in a thread he links to his tweet from 2024 that mentions using disappearing messages on Signal which the WPEngine lawyers are now using against him.
So many people (including DannyBee, himself a lawyer) were telling him on HN how opposing counsel would be analyzing every post looking for any kind of angle to give them an edge, and it was very much in his best interest to step away from his computer. But, in reply he said his own lawyers said it was fine so no big deal...
EDIT: also his bright pink X profile image is abusing HDR to make it extra annoyingly bright and the rest of my screen dim on my phone. Very off-putting behavior but pretty on character.
They were using the trademark on the website to describe WordPress the software project under nomitative fair use in the same way many, many hosting providers have been doing for decades. He openly admitted in online comments to trying (and failing) to extort their CEO in private to give Automattic huge payments, and if they declined that he'd destroy their valuation by cutting off their access and buy them for pennies on the dollar. Among other threats leading up to the lawsuit, which taken together made it look like a blatantly selective punitive measure for cynical reasons.
It doesn't help that the word "Wordpress" is used for all sorts of different, but overlapping things: wordpress.com for his private WordPress commercial host competing with WPEngine, wordpress.org for the WordPress Foundation he also controls, WordPress describing the open source GPL licensed project.
Google makes things much simpler to avoid misusing their trademarks by splitting Chrome for their commercial product and Chromium for the open source project.
And the part that is being litigated is whether that is, in fact, fair use, correct?
I like the comparison to Chrome and Chromium. I don't know the timeline of the whole wordpress IP. At this most it has arguably undergone genericization. That's why I think it's complicated enough that there is merit to arguments on either side.
How is that a de facto ban, you can't trademark the common names of plenty of substances ubiquitous in daily life. The manufacturers of refrigerants don't seem like they could completely dictate what appliance manufacturers choose to use in their products.
It seems for refrigerators there are actually specific carve outs in EPA venting regulations to allow R-290 (propane) along with a couple others.
If vendors don't use it, possibly due to flammability, whether a real risk or as imagined by consumers that's a completely different situation. I can't find anything claiming it's banned or even discouraged by the government.
They did not in fact diagnose anything, "mental illness" is not a specific condition in the DSM. You'd have a valid point if they confidently stated he had bipolar disorder or something.
Yes, buy NPD *is* in the DSM. While I'm not a mental health professional (read: I can't diagnose with any authority), I would still say that Mullenweg consistenly exhubits many / most of the symptoms of classic NPD.
Yep, and at that point it doesn't matter. I mean, I know Apple likes to paint the back of the fence, but the technology isn't quite there for no crease just yet.
I highly doubt they're going to put out a product under their name that has such an obvious defect after six months. Something tells me they cracked this fully, and that's why this phone has been in development for over a year, so they can get actual long-term repeated use of it to see just how much this "crease" will or will not show.
It's Apple, not a budget Samsung. They 100% would not put out a product that starts having obvious lines down the center of it after using it for a couple months. You'll see when the 6-month reviews come in.
They come with one stock, and Samsung says you shouldn't remove it (which doesn't mean you can't, but I'm not brave enough to try). It's like $20 to get it replaced if you live near a Samsung shop
I removed it on Fold 5-7 and it felt a lot better. It won't kill the product like it did back in Fold 1 days. The screen is a lot more sensitive to micro scratches than your run if the mill gorilla glass though.
Is the factory applied screen protector user replaceable? Or is it a screen protector in the same way that the glass is 'screen protector'? It's just a part of the assembly?
Like I know Google can read any of my emails, but I also don't see them do monthly blog posts describing intimate details from each email they found in one guy's Gmail inbox who their algorithm flagged as "maybe possibly kinda sketchy: 70% confidence"
reply