Oh, turns out you can't blur the satellite images. Then yeah idk how this helps.
Edit: Well maybe you aren't a target to begin with, but mass scanning can make you one. Like if you park some expensive car out front and someone far away checks all houses with expensive cars. It's a bit far-fetched, but there also aren't that many reasons not to blur your house unless the concern is they only target blurred houses.
Not if the models are way cheaper. For many tasks you can do with DeepSeek Flash, and for more gnarly problems you switch to GLM or Kimi. But sure, if you do everything in large models like Kimi K3 or GLM it gets expensive quickly.
EU law doesn't actually require a monopoly for competition rules to apply, it's a "dominant position". Apple certainly meets that definition for smartphone platforms.
Sure, but ApolloFortyNine described Apple’s behavior as “slam dunk monopoly abuse”. A monopoly is not a dominant position, it’s an overwhelmingly dominant one.
If you want to distribute mobile apps and reach all users - something that is required for any kind or collaborative app - you MUST support iPhone in the western world. In fact, it’s often iPhone first, Android second.
And on the iPhone, you MUST use the Apple App Store, not just as a means to distribute your app, but as your payment provider. You can’t collect payment details yourself, use Stripe, Paddle, anything. You MUST use Apple.
You simply cannot enter business without paying Apple a share. That’s a monopoly.
I love picking blackberries, sloes, elderberries, elderflowers, crab apples etc from the hedgerows around me in the south of England. I also love then using them to make preserves etc. Very relaxing and rewarding.
The first sentence says she came across it when reading about compression. I didn't read that as her claiming to have discovered the idea or that it was a new idea, I read it as "today I learned". I think somebody who was unfamiliar with how compression algorithms or language models work would find this an approachable and interesting introduction. Not everybody studied information theory.
None of the previous concerns were true, largely because they came from laypeople who didn't understand the technology. A prominent exception is nuclear weapons, where their creators did worry their creations could end up destroying the world. I think most people would agree those concerns were justified, and it's not any lack of capability that means we're still here.
The motivations aren't unique here. Restrictions on the development of almost any technology benefits incumbents by providing a moat.
Employees inside frontier labs have the chance to make life changing money if they can make it to an IPO before the music stops. Have you considered that might be the reason they are so eager to claim "ai dangerous - regulate ai"? The nuclear scientists at los alamos did not have generational wealth incentivizing them to raise "concerns" to the public.
If your only evidence that the claim "ai dangerous - regulate ai" is true is "insiders who stand to make billions if they can regulate away the competition" told me so, that is pretty weak evidence indeed.
If a group of concerned scientists (without $$$ in stock options) demonstrated that anyone with one year of HS chemistry, an Amazon account, and a ChatGPT max plan could build a bioweapon 10x more lethal than an AR15 mass shooting or driving a truck into a crowd (because it is certainly more than 10x harder to make a bioweapon than either of these things, even with a theoretical AGI), then that would be worrisome. This is really not that high of an evidence bar but even it has not been met, but oh no we should start regulating yesterday.
reply