> So, if I'm reading this correctly, Chat Control [2.0, implied] is bound to become law?
Nope. This is bad, but not THAT bad.
This is an extension of the existing Chat Control 1.0, which was set to expire (or maybe already has, I didn't keep track). AIUI it gives chat companies permission to scan user chats for illicit content, but does not mandate it.
This is bad, but it's not the much worse still Chat Control 2.0 that was defeated several times already.
I have a hunch that the Epstein class is getting increasingly upset about the kids encountering ideas about what ought to be done about the Epstein class, and mostly are keen to see the next generation molded back into good little subservient laborers. It really isn't about the well-being of the kids.
Ok, I gave the 35B MoE weights a shot at Q6. It failed my go-to code reasoning benchmark (local models usually do), but delivered the most advanced output I've seen so far for my (non-agentic) coding execution benchmark. It was also full of bugs, though more in the form of coding mistakes than the deep logic bugs I usually see in local models. The code was also a bit haphazard, and some of those bugs could have been prevented entirely with a better code structure.
It was fairly good at diagnosing the bugs once informed of their symptoms. However, if I mischaracterized the symptoms, it would weigh my input too heavily and reject its own (correct) hunch about the root cause.
So it's an interesting one. There's definitely some latent capability in there that arguably exceeds Qwen 3.6, which is absolutely no small feat. But that capability seems to come in a somewhat erratic package.
It's probably worth benchmarking it unquantized if you can. I've grown to suspect that quantization damages small models more than perplexity and KL divergence accurately reflect.
A 9B model with the capability of the 35B SOTA from last February is too good to be true, and a wild claim to make IMO even if there's a newer 35B SOTA. I'll need to make time to take it on a test drive and see how it holds up.
The interesting thing here is that Amodei is implicitly admitting he foresees open-weight models (and not "open-source", please...) reaching Mythos-equivalent capability before much longer.
Which, I mean, d'uh; if you've been paying attention it's not a wild forecast.
I mean, there's such a thing as reality and there's such a thing as being wrong.
By construction, the closer you approach reality, the narrower your band of uncertainty becomes, and the less overlap you have with viewpoints that are just plain wrong. Doubtless their proponents will call that biased.
Burning even more energy in response to the consequence of burning too much energy is seen by some as counterproductive.
Do also note that AIUI in the US only deaths that were officially ruled from heat are counted as such by the CDC (source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/us/extreme-heat-deaths.ht...), whereas the EU usually performs estimates based on overall deaths in excess of the expected baseline. So it's not apples to apples.
I do agree that avoidable deaths should be avoided, though, so I'm with you on that.
I can't help wondering what kind of models we'll see coming out of China once it gets its own chip fabs up and running. Right now it sounds like the US's export ban is not slowing them down a whole lot.
In the original implementation, SREs have the authority to block further releases until the SLOs are green again -- and, if it comes to that, to hand the pager back to SWE until such a time the product can pass a production readiness review again. That requires a lot of trust on both sides, though, the building of which takes both time and deliberate effort, and I don't know how other shops do it.
After using i3 for a heck of a long time, I'm finding myself liking KDE quite a lot. The amount of obvious care and polish that went into it is delightful. I just wish it had support for tabbed window layout!
Whenever someone wants "small government" I assume they mean "a government that does not prevent me from shackling you" and hoo boy does that end up correct a lot.
Given that the "proprietary" model is built on stolen work at an unprecedented scale, it's at the very least hypocritical to a degree that would not be possible without a fundamentally amoral mindset.