slashdave

6 ms·

61.
by slashdave 3mo ago
> So someone could simply do a passthrough, and give the uncopyrightable output to someone else to distill It seems you do not understand what distillation is.
62.
by slashdave 3mo ago
The workload is anything besides stateless
63.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Well, depends if you want to call OpenAI "respectable"
64.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Yes, breaking the terms of use is fraud. And, no, no self-respecting company would do this deliberately.
65.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Distillation is forbidden by the provider of the model. I suppose you think that model providers are not allowed to impose restrictions on the use of their model? Think carefully before answering.
66.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Oh, you mean not commit fraud? Why would any respectable company do that?
67.
by slashdave 3mo ago
No, it is stealing the R&D of another company.
68.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Free market does not mean breaking laws. China is not socialist. The issue here is the lack of rule of law in China. Not sure this would really fix that, though.
69.
by slashdave 3mo ago
> it’s not stopping distillation either, > an admittance that the American labs can’t compete on merit anymore Small contradiction here
70.
by slashdave 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
71.
by slashdave 3mo ago
It could negate the treatment (the vector will be neutralized by the immune system).
72.
by slashdave 3mo ago
It was a genetic disorder. Stop with the silly labeling.
73.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Replace "Show HN:" with "Advertisement:" ?
74.
by slashdave 3mo ago
This post makes me feel old
75.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Each user costs them money
76.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Oh, is this a thing? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glitterati > people who are famous, wealthy Oh, okay... > and attractive lost me
77.
by slashdave 3mo ago
I dunno. I wonder if Sol could break OpenAI's security.
78.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Their entire business model from the beginning of ChatGPT was to deny responsibility
79.
by slashdave 3mo ago
> on par with requiring encryption backdoors There is no back door if nothing leaves your device > goes against the purpose of having end to end encryption Most people would consider the "purpose" is to avoid 3rd parties lis
80.
by slashdave 3mo ago
I don't think you understand banking https://www.ncontracts.com/nsight-blog/risk-management-strat...
81.
by slashdave 3mo ago
I seem to recall that Apple provided an audit
82.
by slashdave 3mo ago
That must also be the world where more than a tiny number of people are using GrapheneOS
83.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Kind of a bad analogy (not service related, no associated liability). A better one: what about rental property, like a business? Can the landlord randomly check for criminal behavior?
84.
by slashdave 3mo ago
> end to end encryption means no CSAM scanning Not true. There is the option of scanning on the device.
85.
by slashdave 3mo ago
> most people don't need cloud backups What world do you live in?
86.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Only if the company misleads and adds a backdoor to the front-end app (thus this entire discussion). If the company is misleading, any encryption technology is irrelevant anyway.
87.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Huh? So it was some grand conspiracy that keeps Windows in use in the vast majority of businesses? Delusional
88.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Libreoffice
89.
by slashdave 3mo ago
We call that capitalism. You have this a little backwards, really. Fascist is a political movement in which corporations conspire with the government.
90.
by slashdave 3mo ago
Is the value of a task measured solely by a return?

More ›