fwiw he wasn't charged as an accessory in this case. He was charged with "corruptly concealing a document or record" and "conspiracy to conceal documents".
In fact federal law provides that accessorys can't be sentenced to more than 15 years if the principal crime is punishable by life imprisonment (like terrorism is).
> or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
OpenGL doesn't have any way to do this except sometimes via vendor specific extensions. Basically how OpenGL works is it creates the graphics context on whichever device the system hands it. So you can configure the GPU used by OpenGL on the system level but not at the application level.
I had a coworker who spent his career working for 2 years then taking 2 years off to live off the savings. Have you considered such a strategy? It seemed to be working out well enough for him.
Or maybe its all about compute availability like they say. It could be that they plan to start training a new model on the 22ed, so the amount of compute available for inference will be greatly reduced.
No it says sharing is required. If you don't change the setting on your account then you simply can't access Fable, its not like the setting is ignored. I just tried this on my account and it blocks API requests to Fable.
They are encrypted to prevent others from training on the reasoning trace. But before anthropic started encrypting the reasoning traces they were signed. The signature was to prevent the user from being able to manipulate the reasoning part of the context because this reasoning part is considered "more trustworthy" by the model. So it would be bad if the user could manipulate the reasoning to convince the model to do something dangerous/against policy. Encryption keeps this property while also preventing the reasoning from being used for training.
The state of incorporation doesn't often matter in interstate contracts. Usually they will include a choice of law and forum selection clause specifically to avoid this kind of thing.
look into "sealed sender" schemes, they allow the recipient to verify the sender identity without allowing anyone else to verify the sender identity. So making use of such a scheme allows you to prevent governments or corporations from intercepting even the metadata of communications (and of course E2EE prevents intercepting the contents).
What if a user puts an email from their attorney into chatgpt so they can ask questions about it to better understand it? Surely the email would still be covered but maybe the questions and answers wouldn't be?
Or what if your phone automatically generates a summary of your attorneys text message, would that be covered?
Maritime law alone isn't what justifies seizing of ships identified as stateless. Under maritime law ships properly registered to a state are only subject to that states laws when in international waters. But stateless ships can be subject to any states laws, however maritime law itself doesn't grant the right to seize even stateless ships. So the US seizing a stateless ship would have to justified under US law.
Basically stateless ships don't have any international legal protections in international waters (at least according to the US's interpretation of the law).
By the plain text of international law a state cannot commit piracy since piracy specifically only applies to private actors.
> Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft...