What its saying is if you look at any single model, it can be beaten by an ensemble of weaker models.
E.g fable 5 is beaten by an ensemble of previous gen models.
One takeaway from this is that anthropic do not want their public-facing model to be good at advanced ML research.
With that incentive it seems reasonable to assume that future anthropic models will not be good at ML research, at least because they aren't incentivised to make it so, and therefore using other models perhaps open source will be the way to go.
This does make the large assumption that they can afford to train a parallel model for themselves to assist in their own research. But given their huge valuation, and incentives, that extra cost is feasibly worth it for them.
The beauty of it is that in their exemption request, Apple claimed they have plans to introduce an intermediary system for other AIs within 18 months. So they can no longer claim that it's impossible for security reasons.
It's analogous to reading a textbook and skipping the exercises. The exercises make you think and realize the gaps in your knowledge that you did "read" at the time but didn't fully appreciate.
The is surprisingly fun. One improvement would be to show the relative difference visually when it tells you the answer, like in bar chat form so at a glance you can tell how different they are.
Hold on, isn't the government subject to the law anyway?
So a contract saying "they can only do x and y when it is legal", is not really any different to a contract without the legal clause. I.e. "they can do x and y".
Most people with ad blockers don't realize how unusable the web is for those that don't have ad blockers. I think most would agree this is a poor state that industry incentives have landed us in, and with the web being distributed, it's hard to know how to fix.
Similarly those who use Linux probably don't realize how bad Windows has got recently.
Microsoft has managed to replicate this awful ux problem on a system that they entirely control...
I agree with that. But isn't the net money that goes from the VC to the fusion company included in the 3% that the article mentions which is adding value by servicing individuals and companies when they need money?
While the argument is that the other 97% of transactions in the finance world add no value. And that 97 >> 3.
That said I don't agree that they add "no value", market efficiency is provided which seems to be a valuable thing in some sense. But i find it quite interesting to think about, especially when you look at them in purely monetary terms as being zero sum.
I wonder this about the massive increase in crawlers too.
What happened to the computer misuse act? If I specifically state that my site is not to be crawled, via robots.txt and other mechanisms, why does continuously hammering it not count as illegitimate access? Do they need to breach some sign in / explicit t+c agreement for that to apply?
This raises a question in my head. If the author was to update the license to something restrictive, consumers and transitive consumers will npm update at some point, and likely not notice the dependency change.
They would then be breaking the license terms without realizing.
Is there anything in npm to protect against this? Projects have hundreds of dependencies, it's not feasible to manually check licenses haven't changed every time you update.