wqaatwt

7 ms·

121.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
They “banned” the company, not the product. US government could ban US citizens from buying tokens from certain Chinese provider but there is no precedent for banning the usage of specific software if you run it yourself.
122.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Yeah but that’s very standard and pretty much all pre-profit tech companies do something like that when/if they can
123.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Why would they? If they see the market as a duopoly for now and don’t consider open Chinese models a fully credible threat that might start eating into their share then they have the incentive to charge as much as the market can bear instea
124.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Chinese companies like Deepseek are operating on shoestring budgets (allegedly less than 300 employees at Chinese wages). It’s not that self evident there is anything that needs subsidized besides compute (due to limited manufacturing capac
125.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
This article seems to be struggling with telling apart the difference between R&D and operating expenses? The fact that AI companies are extremely unprofitable doesn’t mean they are subsidizing token costs, they still can have very dece
126.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> exempting themselves from monitoring Wasn’t that in the Chat Control proposal? i.e. politicians and other important individuals are exempt
127.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
In this case it would be 20-40 hours to accomplish the same amount in f work when running locally
128.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> person is using it in bursts and intermittently throughout an 8 hour workday. You can’t do that with 6 tps, though.
129.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Because they want to maximize longterm profitability and believe (which makes sense to me) this approach would harm that
130.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
So what? It what they are actually doing that matters.
131.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> felt I’d should be legal, and that he wouldn’t enforce the drug law If that’s true then by definition its not corruption but a completely different crime.
132.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> If your morals consist of eye-for-an-eye retribution It’s still preferable to doing nothing when that politician is publicly declaring their support of indiscriminately violating inherent personal freedoms on an unlimited scale.
133.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
There are supposedly ~10 civilian owned firearms per 100 people in Denmark. I doubt there are that many gang members there?
134.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
There are countries in the EU which have pretty lax gun laws and firefighters are fairly accessible they still have fairly low levels of gun crime. Just having access to weapons doesn’t mean that people will start killing each other for no
135.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Chat Control? The Denmark is the primary supporter of universal stalking across the EU.
136.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
It’s not fundamentally different than indiscriminately scanning everyone’s private communication (what the Danish government is trying to accomplish on the EU level)
137.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
You can not “democratically” decide to abolish certain inalienable personal liberties and still pretend you are a democracy. That’s just mob rule or worse. > totalitarian privacy dictatorship That’s an illogical concept. What does that e
138.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> The Basque and the Northern Irish terrorists / freedom fighters have gotten a so many of their demands for autonomy met that they disbanded That’s certainly not how it works. They just became highly unpopular amongst the populatio
139.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
You do have a valid point but mildly “hurting” (or rather inconveniencing) the justice minister of Denmark out of all places seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean he’s hellbent on using 1984 as a guidebook and forcing it on
140.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
> So were stalking, wiretapping, etc. That whole time, judicial warrants had Those things were costly and didn’t scale very well. Which is why it was more tolerable. Without encryption and with legally required backdoors the authorities
141.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Why fuss over anyone committing lesser harm when there is something worse happening somewhere else?
142.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
By the same standard it would be reasonable to intervene when politicians are indiscriminately interfering with personal communications devices of everyone without any judicial oversight?
143.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
No, not at all. Methods and targets/victims also matter. Using violence to achieve specific military objectives or as a response to violence is not the same as indiscriminate murder and terrorism.
144.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Historically indiscriminate extra judicial murder has never worked as a tool for addressing societal injustice, it has been tried countless times, usually it just made things worse.
145.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Also because most people presumably aren’t really into indiscriminate irrational murder. The victim was a merely an entirely replaceable cog in an unfair system (also a human being who had a family and there is no real evidence he personall
146.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Can’t you get a much better used car for that? that’s probably one of the reasons why there is not much demand for basic cheap cars with no features in Western countries at least. Modern cars are much more reliable and last longer than they
147.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
All open model that have reasoning seem to be doing it in text tokens. Is there any indication that closed models are approaching this somehow fundamentally differently?
148.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Is this some new revelation? That was well known when the first OpenAI/Anthropic “thinking” models came out.
149.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Or the API is massively overpriced. What Anthropic/OpenAI are charging for tokens says almost nothing about their actual costs, just what people are willing to pay. It’s just an obvious example of market segmentation by charging enterp
150.
by wqaatwt 4mo ago
Coal burns dirtier and and is more Co2 intense than gas though.

More ›