I second. I live right above a shopping mall and next to Dongmen, which is easily one of the largest shopping areas in the world, yet I still end up ordering most things online.
True, but we know Opus is more like a "spear" and a progressive enhancement over it still leaves us firmly in the "spear" category, not the "nuke" category. Drawing lines makes sense, but this is premature. Even if you draw the line at human level intelligence, we still seem to be pretty far off.
> The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups: my academic colleagues and business people. Business people are enemies of free markets, not friends.
> [...]
> The business people are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else, and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessman to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of a free market. But when it comes to their own business, they want to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction. They want a tax subsidy. And Chrysler is on the verge of failing, which it should have done. It should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence and tries to get the government to lend it money to subsidize it.
> So businessmen in general — not all, there have been some notable exceptions — and I don't want to include everybody. But in the main, most businessmen are enemies of free markets.
Why would global talent and capital migrate to go to a country with greater regulatory barriers? Why would "some models are illegal to use here" be a selling point for the US?
China didn't even blanket ban them. They established laws that Internet companies have to follow and most U.S. tech companies refused to comply. Some did (e.g. Bing) and aren't banned.
You think the US can tell the rest of the world "we're the only ones allowed to use frontier models" and that the rest of the world will just comply? There's just no way. Not even close US allies would go along with that.
> given all the negative externalities that are becoming apparent
What specific externalities are you referring to? The only I can think of is high electricity usage, but consuming energy isn't an externality in itself. It depends entirely on how that electricity is generated and whether its environmental costs are already priced.
I doubt inference costs will scale up significantly, but even if they do, it simply strengthens the strategic case for Apple's focus on local inference.
> That's why Anthropic switched to scanning paper books.
Could they not just subscribe to the academic publishers like universities do? Or buy eBooks? I don't understand how the "scanning" part is relevant here other than used physical books being cheaper perhaps?
Interesting. I did a bit of digging and the disclaimer about not being an officially supported Google product was there from the start. There was briefly a logo that used Google colors[0] but it seems extreme to fire someone over such a small misstep. I'd say either HR gave him a bogus reason like you said or he's not telling the whole story.
It's weird that he even had the ability to create public repos inside the official Google Workspace org then. That said, I agree that some information seems to be missing. Like, why not instead fire the guy who announced the project on X and who I presume is his manager? Confusing.
I did not realize Mitnick had passed away, very sad. I first learned about him as a kid through the book Takedown, and his exploits definitely fueled my early fascination with computers and hacking. It's heartwarming to see how he later befriended Shawn Nunley, though it's unfortunate that he and Shimomura apparently never buried the hatchet. He undoubtedly influenced an entire generation of hackers, RIP.
Surprised to see him writing about this again. He spent years completely consumed by his hate for crypto, tweeting around the clock, before suddenly rage-quitting social media. I assumed he had permanently unplugged for his own peace of mind.
The irony is his background as a former "blockchain" startup founder, right during that mid-2010s era when people who missed the early Bitcoin boat desperately tried to make "enterprise blockchain" happen. It reads like a severe case of cognitive dissonance reduction. Having spent years trying to make the wrong iteration of the tech happen while missing the actual wave, he embarked on an endless crusade to manifest a collapse just to retroactively validate his own poor decisions.
https://syskall.com/