wasfgwp

6 ms·

61.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
That’s some weirdly perverse attitude to have. Regardless if it’s Musk or anyone else, in general the actions of highly successful people have a disproportionally high impact on the society. So they need to be criticized as harshly as is re
62.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> carries the __western__ values…China would never want a shiny model Maybe, but that’s an opinion on what you think might happen. So far that has not been the case. But yeah currently you can ask their models exactly the same controvers
63.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. The median and above are doing very well in relative terms, the bottom line 10 percent or so are often doing much worse compared to other developed countries. > I suppose it’s just my misconception, sure.
64.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Yes, I specifically said the MEDIAN American and the top 10th percentile.
65.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
I would include consumer rights protection and regulating uneven and unbalanced contracts. To an extent one might expect that sufficient competition could solve this but often it doesn’t. You usually are forced to buy goods/services as
66.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> Anyone who tried using Chinese models for serious programming Perhaps, but that’s because they are just objectively worse for many tasks than GPT/Claude. I don’t see how that ties to censorship inside of China. > censorship lim
67.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> free weights" are only useful for other research labs No, they are useful for any compute provider who can host these models and sell inference. Which effectively puts a cap on whatever the Chinese companies can charge. So longter
68.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Yes, it’s freedom both from state interference but also from monopolies, oligopolies and trusts using their position to suppress the competitiveness of other market participants. Which is generally impossible to prevent without the state in
69.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes Coincidentally it’s where the British version of the Office is set
70.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> free from any interference That’s even less true in the US these days, though
71.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
That’s extremely American centered, though? Despite the constant complaining the median American is still very well off compared to almost everyone else. If you go to the top 10 percentile or so them maybe only Switzerland and some very sma
72.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Well no.. regardless of anything else the median American generally has q higher standards of livin than the resident of pretty much any major country (including Europe). While compared to e.g. Germany or France those in the lower percentil
73.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
For private companies to an extent yes. In public companies that’s just a way to increase your employees compensation without harming your free cashflow. I don’t think tax wise it’s any different than them paying you more in cash and then y
74.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> costs hundreds of billions to develop - to BOTH US and China OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely bloated compared to the Chinese labs. They have thousands of extremely well paid people working for them. Deepseek I think has a couple of
75.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> the latter because of internal censorship Having limited amounts of high quality Chinese data to train on doesn’t really decrease or affect the appeal of these models to the rest of the world. I don’t think the CCP is restricting or li
76.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Following that logic anyone using an LLM trained on “stolen” data for any purpose whatsoever is engaging in theft. Assuming the Chinese companies are obtaining their traces legitimately (which is a different question) what they are engaging
77.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> It's categorically The fraud part and using stolen accounts or credit cards or blatantly violating the terms and conditions (i.e. reselling subscriptions not using outputs in certain ways somebody might not like) is indeed categor
78.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Sure but it’s hard to read what Anthropic is saying in any other way than that they think that it’s morally wrong to engage in any behavior that harms their (potential) profit margins. The exact phrasing is just a way to justify their stanc
79.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
How is “model output distillation” different to using outputs (which are legally copyrightable) for any other purpose?
80.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
LLM outputs are not copyrightable. At least that’s the current established legal precedent in the US. The only question is whether the user owns the copyright without significantly transforming the output but that’s not really relevant in t
81.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Why are you calling the Chinese companies “thieves” though? LLM outputs are not copyrightable (or rather the user is effectively the only one who can own it). It would be problematic if Anthropic owned all the software generated using Claud
82.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> two wrongs don't make a right There is no second “wrong” here. Model outputs are not copyrightable. I think that was already established? Or do you think that Anthropic should own all the code generated by Claude? Surely that woul
83.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Well there were observed cases of Claude calling itself Deepseek or Qwen. So pot calling the kettle black? To be fair I find it hard to take this too seriously, shouldn’t it be trivial to just replace “Claude” with any other string in your
84.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Do you think that Anthropic should own any outputs you generate with their models? If not there is not there is no grey zone whatsoever.
85.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
LLM outputs are not copyrightable or rather the user who generated them owns it. That entirely settles it and there isn’t much else to say about. If Anthropic feels that other countries are violating their EULA well they are free to stop do
86.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
The models to themselves are currently generally not censored though and the guardrails are on the application layer? Of course that might change in the future but as long as the Chinese companies continue publishing their research and mode
87.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
The better question is why would any rational consumer would want anyone to “win”? Disappearance of competition is the worst outcome for them (I guess being squeezed by a monopolistic company from your pwn country is slightly nicer)
88.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
That doesn’t mean people were constantly moving around the empire for no particular reason like people are today. Traveling large distances was expensive and dangerous and fairly rare outside of a few professions. Soldiers being one of them
89.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
> Do you know how many slaves were black in the Roman empire In the Western Mediterranean? Most likely diminishingly few. It’s hard to imagine why would that might not had been the case.
90.
by wasfgwp 3mo ago
Equating North Africans who genetically, culturally more interlinked with other Mediterranean people with Sub-Saharan Africans is not exactly right. After all before the Indo-European invasion Europe was almost exclusively settled by middle

More ›