Is there anyway to build intelligence that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism you are using here?

I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community...

That sentence could easily be applied to the human baseline.

What exactly is your complaint about Anna's Archive?

[dead]

> wrong 10% of the time

that doesn't sound nearly as bad as you think it does; I don't see how ethics are relevant here either, unless oil is also somehow a scam

regardless, one must be delusional to deny the fact that it's useful tech

"but they're evil" is not an argument

Well yes, there is tons of AI bullshit about and all sorts of scammy behavior, but I don’t think that says anything at all either way about whether the core technology is a “scam”, theranos-style. In fact I’m not sure how it could be otherwise: of course there’s going to be all sorts of hype and scamming around a novel, rapidly-progressing and potentially transformative tech like this, even if it works.

If you want an analogy, look at the history of the early railroads. Full of hype, bullshitters, scammy investments, robber-barons, unrealistic promises, and with their own legion of naysayers at the time. Yet the core technology worked and it did transform the world in the end.

Jargon isn't a scam. I get more and better work done with AI, to my own satisfaction and to the benefit of my employer. People using dumb terms to describe this doesn't make it less true.

"AI is hyped well beyond its actual worth, or whether the technology will be used for benevolent or nefarious purposes by American oligarchs."

This article is asking none of those questions. It's mostly a high school gossip column about what was said and with what tone and who used Butt pillows by The New Yorker, it reeks of desperation. If they could just find something nefarious on Sam Altman or show him in a bad light that sticks, they could fix it all and make AI go away.

My point stands, they're in for a Rude awakening.

$5B valuation on a $30B run rate for Anthropic?

Lol. What exactly have you based this "fair valuation" off of? Vibes?

Come on. LinkedIn was bought for 6B.

These companies are selling subscriptions for what is basically AGI, yet you think they should have the same valuation as Crocs (yes, the footwear company) ?

It wasn't illegal so there is some reason why the USA allowed it.

And as mentioned, they agreeed that they will not get the capital openai needs, so what did the USA people loose? A company which whouldn't have been able to do what they are known for anyway.

Again i'm not protecting the rich, i just don't think there is a real scandal and its not the same as the other 2 the newyorker mentioned

Leaked emails I think showed the open source part at the heart of the concept of OpenAI was never serious and was just to help recruit.

> But it is far more interesting, complicated, and useful to take his self-defense at face value—to interpret the many sins of OpenAI, and its competitors, as the result of a good-faith exercise in futility. What if we imagined that he did in fact set out to do good? And discovered—or, perhaps better, failed to discover—along the way that this was structurally impossible?

But that is not what happened. It is neither complicated or interesting, it is just an alternative timeline sci-fi exercise. It can be fun to engage in, but it is not anything that would had anything to do with the current world as it is.

A people interested in good faith attempt to do good dont end up in Sam Altman position. They do good and focus on doing good rather then lie to get more investments so that they can corner the market and become powerful.

It’s ridiculous to accuse someone of having a “somewhat loose relationship with the truth” when Elon Musk is sitting right across from him, accusing him of dishonest behavior.

Musk was not going to win due to the statue of limitations. Altman was wrong to turn a non-profit to a for-profit because they need it more money (really?). Was not the whole point of Open AI to shield artificial intelligence from the amoral practices of capitalistic controls? This is yet another example of our legal system falling short due to the fast an unforeseen changes of society and technology.

Unfortunately, there's really no clear path to viable local models for the common folk, the hardware requirements are just too extreme. I say this as someone with a pair of A100s that is absolutely delighted by what the open source models are capable of, but even with the best harnesses, tiny quantized models are just not even close to the same league as something like Kimi-k2.

Of course, here on HN it's easy to find folks who get a lot out of tinkering with tiny models, but the masses don't want to tinker with toys, they want something fast with a large context and approximating at least Opus 4.6 level reliability and capability, which simply can't be squeezed into a quantized 60b model.

How so?

You don't have to root for or against anyone in this fight. It's perfectly valid to oppose both actors and both outcomes, and the stakes of the fight.

> I've seen Elon be an active piece of shit, white nationalist, conspiracy promoter, etc, for years. I don't root for Sam Altman. I root against Elon.

A stopped clock is right twice a day Even Elon is sometimes right.

I think paul graham needs to really come clean about why he did this

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41034829

Not being an US citizen, I have not been affected by any action of Elon Musk, even if I despise many of the things done by him in USA, like the results of DOGE.

On the other hand, I have much more reasons to hate Sam Altman, who has stolen a significant amount of money from my own pocket and from a very great number of other people around the world, by causing the huge increases in the prices of DRAM, SSDs and HDDs.

Moreover, Elon Musk has some positive achievements, even if it is hard to put them in balance with his bad actions, while I see absolutely nothing good done by Sam Altman. Successfully luring fools to invest hundreds of billions in AI does not count as something good.

The word used will be toll. Basically the clock measuring the statute of limitations can be stopped/paused for certain things. It could be that the victim was under the age of 18 and therefore couldn't sue until they hit 18. Or the incident was concealed, so the victim couldn't take action until the concealment was gone.

0 - https://www.trustwelllaw.com/resources/legal-term-faq/statut...

The substantive point of law will most likely be that OpenAI's salami slicing tactic for becoming a for-profit does not properly fall under the statute of limitations. To think otherwise is basically no different than arguing that you can rob a person twice and not be prosecuted for the second robbery because of "double jeopardy".

What do you mean? Pandoras box has already been opened. Even if OpenAI disappears, there will be another one to take its marketshare. The tech is too useful to die

I think parent probably means winning on merit or a sense of justice. As in won for a deserved reason rather than a technicality. The technicality here is exceeded the statute of limitations.

A win in any manner isn’t landing the same for observers as winning for a just reason.