It is distressing that so many groups, usually calling themselves "ideologies" or "religions" demand that the countries where they happen to be cancel their own values. ESPECIALLY when it comes to values like equality.
In this case equality between men and women, but let's not pretend that for most ideologies that is any more than just one of many inequalities they would like to introduce. Sorry, "to have respected", as if that means anything different.
Wasn't making street plans from satellite pictures ruled transformative? So if you get an AI to make street plans from Google maps, satellite layer, you're not violating copyright are you?
Bing Maps allows the OpenStreetMap community to trace from aerial_imagery
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps#Aerial_imagery Google doesn't. How much a tool helps somebody to draw the actual roads varies by editor software used, some have plugins. Using AI in bulk isn't allowed afaik.
If you obtain the satellite images directly from Google Maps, you can still have problems because you might not have permission to use the data. That's not copyright though.
Another reason might be that modifications of the map are entangled and can be hard to revert in case of a dispute. It's much easier for the Internet Archive to just drop snapshots of websites/pages (and they do so, AFAIK).
Violating a ToU is legal, but the corporation might ban you in return because that's legal too. All you give up is your ostensible right not to be banned.
Don't terms of use depend entirely on copyright to work? Without copyright ... why would you need to agree to terms of use to use the software/site/data?
And doesn't that mean that terms of use can never impose restrictions stricter than copyright?
No. ToU is a part of contract law. Basically the website is providing a service for you. In exchange for your use of that service, you agree to be bound by the terms. This implicitly creates a contract between you and the website, with the terms laid out by the ToU. This sort of implicit contract is legally controversial - normally for a contract to be valid there needs to be affirmative signatures from both parties, as well as consideration (money) exchanged. In the U.S. at least, "click-wrap" (where you must affirmatively click "I agree") and "scroll-wrap" (where you must scroll through the whole ToU before the product unlocks) ToUs are generally considered enforceable, but "sign-in wrap" (where creating an account binds you) and "browse-wrap" (where there's a ToU link) are very dubiously enforceable. But we're talking about Google here, and they make you click through the ToU and say you agree whenever you unbox a new Android device or create a Google account, and then have it apply to all usage of Google services.
Enforcement can be quite challenging because typically if you provide a service over the Internet you don't have any idea who is using it beyond their IP address and any registration data they provide, but this also means that when companies do have a known violator and can show significant monetary damages, their legal departments come down like a ton of bricks.
Google Maps has commercial licenses to some of their data. Reusing that data without your own license can cause problems you might not like. This mostly applies in cases where it's provable that the data you used would've required a license that you do not have.
I would worry about trap streets. A collection of facts isn't copyrightable, and arguably the network of existing streets shown in satellite photos falls into that category. But if I were the photo licensor, I'd be tempted to Photoshop in a few fictional features that could be protected as "creative expression," or some such BS.
The ship's computer reacts like an (incredibly good) expert system. It refuses to say anything that isn't verifiably correct, and if you get it into a logical inconsistency it essentially throws and error and doesn't elaborate further.
LLMs don't do have those responses. LLMs are like humans: humans respond, correct or not (with humans hopefully if they only know incorrect stuff the response is to say so, but that is not a guarantee, but they will respond). And if you give a human, or an LLM, a logical inconsistency they will simply proceed, whether they detect the inconsistency or not.
This is how LLMs are designed ... and if you look long enough at the human (or animal) nervous system you will eventually realize that this is also the design of our nervous system: if something goes in, something comes out, guaranteed (in fact that's close to the only guarantee). Very different from expert system's "either something correct (according to the programmed axioms) comes out, or nothing".
Hell, if you then look at insect nervous systems, they are also designed that way. The key is to respond to everything. And while reasonable responses are certainly preferred, an idiotic response is still seen as a lot better than not responding at all by God/Darwin. Exactly like LLMs.
Of course, for humans/insects our bodies are what is called "active stable", like a plane. Meaning our bodies damage themselves, and just outright die without constant neural control. Heartbeat. Breathing. Blood flow regulation. Temperature, probably even the immune system. All need constant neural feedback to stay stable, and if that neural feedback totally disappears, we're dead in 2-10 seconds (heart failure), 2 minutes (breathing), a few hours, maybe a day (temperature regulation). Now we have a distributed nervous system, meaning lots of parts can fail semi-independently, for a short while, but even without your cortex operational you die in a few weeks.
The consequences of this are even explored with "I, Borg" (5x23) and the Datalore episodes after that, where the underlying problem is that the Borg try (and fail) to adapt to and to process a logical inconsistency but Soong's androids have no issue with it (with Data trying to help and his brother Lore trying to control them and Data with it)
> It refuses to say anything that isn't verifiably correct, and if you get it into a logical inconsistency it essentially throws and error and doesn't elaborate further… And if you give a human, or an LLM, a logical inconsistency they will simply proceed, whether they detect the inconsistency or not.
Claude has a `End conversation` tool for that. There was a bit of a fuss over it.
And it'll happily give (apparently) wrong (or bafflingly incomplete/confusing) info.
TNG, S4E5:
Beverly: Computer, what is the nature of the universe?
Computer: The universe is a spheroid region 705 meters in diameter.
1) Because AI models are 1000x better about following a problem to its conclusion than coming up with a genuinely new idea.
2) Because if we accept the facts ChatGPT only came up with its "new" idea after being told exactly what the new idea was by a mathematician (OpenAI doesn't dispute this btw). And OpenAIs story comes down to the usual "We didn't look at it, trust me bro", which is made more hard to believe because OpenAI only started their efforts after receiving news of what the researcher was doing.
Oh and OpenAI emphasizes that part of the researcher's progress was made ... on OpenAI.
3) And, probably, the researchers were likely stopped by token limits, and that's the only reason they were slower than OpenAI themselves, which is very, very unfair.
4) OpenAI's story "smells" (like so many AI stories lately). Supposedly the company's team asked ChatGPT about solving millennium problems, and out of all millennium problems it just happens to pick the one where a solution can be found in its chat logs?
5) Yet again it would be in good taste for these AI companies to just give this to the researchers (no shortage of difficult unsolved math problems, so if AI can solve them all, just find another one). But instead, yet again they're fighting about it.
6) OpenAI admits they only went after this problem, with a team, no less, after finding out which researcher went after what problem, because of how they thought it would affect ChatGPT's PR. They are demonstrating, in other words, their willingness to destroy human researcher's reputation for PR wins.
That's getting close to big tobacco level morals right there.
7) If anyone wants to verify how much OpenAI cares about the truth, just ask on ChatGPT about the copyright lawsuit outcome and how it applies to OpenAI.
You'll get EXACTLY the sort of responses you get from Qwen about Tiananmen ("we didn't do it, you have no data, everyone's lying and if we did do it, it was perfectly reasonable because " style argument. Try it)
I don’t know much about NS problem or Euler problem anyway. Can’t tell how significant it is to go from Tristan approach to OpenAI’s results.
It is 10k agents after all with a model that is 2x-3x more powerful than Astra. So claims some intuition is his alone and the model can’t find it independently is Tristan’s belief not the reality, which I don’t find particularly convincing.
I do think that Levent guy isn’t independent and indeed does have an enormous amount of tokens to spend and also on an internal model from Anthropic.
All things considered, I think OpenAI people are competitive, even aggressive. But I don’t think they steal anything. Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama, if it is 3 months, then it is a nothing burger, because by then the original results had already been published.
> Ultimately, the model’s capability is the real surprise factor here, the fact they could get a solution after all in 3 days, that is the cause of drama ...
And there we go, a beside-the-point answer that tries to bring it back to the PR claim. And of course, an unsupported PR claim: if the initial insight really did come from a human, that would indicate the model's capability either isn't there or didn't matter.
And sorry to say, but competitive adversarial rewards for humans + access to the answer always ends in peeking. In kindergarten. In universities. In Engineering firms. In Finance. No difference other than the justification afterwards. Humans peek in competitive settings. They just do. The fix is not "trust me bro", the fix is making sure they have no ability to do it in the first place.
And OpenAI's answer to the "did you peek at the answer?" is trust me, bro ... as per usual.
If OpenAI indeed played fair, then this is a serious "dick move", and not at all how academia is supposed to work. AND if they played fair OpenAI effectively attacked one of their customers here.
If OpenAI didn't play fair then this is stealing from their customers. Which at a different level is their whole business model (get training data from customers, who even pay for that, train better model with that data, charge more, repeat).
And despite how I feel about the US and Israel's government I do have my head straight: regime change in Iran would be a 1000x better outcome than any of your suggestions. And for everyone, by the way. For Trump. For Netanyahu. For Europe. For gulf countries. For Americans. For Europeans. For Bahraini, Emirati, Qatari, Saudi AND for Iranians.
The problem is that empirically regime changes very rarely lead to stable liberal democracies. Yeah, a magical societal transformation according to exactly our standards sounds great to us. But that is not how this is going to end.
But who is there to say that liberal democracies are the desired end of goal for all states? That is the problem with liberal democracies it has very little tolerance for almost any other kind of system.
How many wars in recent history waged in the name of liberal democracies and freedom?
> But who is there to say that liberal democracies are the desired end of goal for all states ...
Everyone. That's the essence of democracy. It quite literally is what everyone wants.
> How many wars in recent history waged in the name of liberal democracies and freedom?
Zero? I guess you mean things like the Iran war, if we disregard entirely that Iran has been attacking almost literally everyone, including the US, but also including, uh, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, ... they attacked fucking Argentina (look at the map, then tell me how ridiculous that is, then check wikipedia to see they did indeed attack Argentina)
Sorry I mean "exporting the revolution", with little or not explanation as to why this particular export required killing 600000 Syrian civilians, and certainly 2 million people total.
What I just can't understand is why tankies support Iran. I mean, how can you get less communist than Iran? I mean is it the words they use and the propaganda? Idiots.
Liberal ideology will crush anyone and anything that stands on it's way until nothing left but total inner destructions, the west is imploding from within with their OnlyFans subscribers and decaying family and cultural values, yet they condemn anything and anyone who show different stance.
Of course there are people who are unhappy with the government, and guess what, there are people unhappy in the US too, but Canada and Mexico doesn't go and arm those people, and if they did, I would be more than certain that the US police and military will slaughter them all.
All the countries you mentioned are nothing but proxy to the US empire and their military complex, and anyone with little knowledge of geopolitics understands this.
The Iranian people will never come out to protest again in masses after how the US betrayed them.
The president said "help is on its way", live on TV, they hijacked radio and tv signals in Iran to broadcast it to as many people as possible.
The people of Iran went out and got slaughtered like cattle.
You think the mothers who lost their sons and daughters, be it us soldiers or Iranians, will just forget that their children died because of an illegal, unnecessary war that was planned by political idiots in a signal group?
Thousands of innocent souls died in this war because the US President is an idiot and a liar. The US citizens are held hostage just as much as the Iranian citizens. It’s not the people’s fault. It’s horrible leadership.
No help was sent, instead, the inability of the US army to end this war put the US into a position where the regime in Teheran will come out infinitely stronger than before the war. They indeed have "all the cards".
Khamenei is not threatening to end the Iranian civilisation and bombing drinking water facilities. It’s the aggressor, the United States of America. They are just missing the R before the US.
The best outcome for the rest of the world is not regime change in Iran. It’s regime change in Washington. Preferably non-violent.
> You think the mothers who lost their sons and daughters, be it us soldiers or Iranians, will just forget that their children died because of an illegal, unnecessary war that was planned by political idiots in a signal group?
I think mothers who saw their children get shot will blame the people shooting. Ie. their own country, the IRGC.
No, because they want to know why this happened, and if they had a chance to prevent it, and getting shot by the IRCG is just the consequence of doing what someone else expected of them.
Go out and protest and I will bring you freedom and peace and prosperity. That was the promise these kids counted on. They paid for those lies in blood.
That blood is on the president’s hands just as much as it is on the hands of the IRCG commanders giving the orders and their henchmen pulling the trigger and you can bet every family who lost someone in this war knows that.
Was regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan worth it despite how bad their governments were? Even the party of Bush & Cheney seems to think that was a bad idea and Trump ran on no more wars in the ME.
The problem with that is that certainly for Afghanistan, you know it's easy to talk to Afghans in Europe these days.
They are angry that Afghanistan was left behind and are absolutely overwhelmingly of the opinion that regime change was worth it.
Now if you ask people in the US if it was worth the cost? That's a different story. The world order effectively depends on free access to the sea and so Afghanistan ... it was never, and will never, work economically. So was it "worth it" in dollars? No. And it won't ever be.
If you ask Europeans who insist they "contributed" to the Afghanistan invasion ... well let's just say I've seen several discussions between Afghans and Europeans about whether it was worth it. Those discussions don't work out very well. Afghans are angry not more was done, Europeans retort that a lot was done and it cost too much (the Europeans discussing never actually contributed anything to the effort, of course. Their argument boils down to that they "gave up" government spending (unemployment contributions, education, ...) for Afghanistan and got nothing back)
... and of course tankies believe islamist propaganda. On marxist.com there was literally published that "If Iran wins this war they will complete the revolution and finally we'll get true communism". I mean, read the site, it regularly has, shall we say, questionable logic. But that one, my jaw hit the floor.
Unfortunately Tesla's great accomplishments do not lie in the car space, but in the getting investments space. In finance. Which means they will have the profitability right, exactly, guaranteed.
Take the Tesla metal casting advance (single-press casting, or as Tesla calls is "Gigacasting"): it is mostly the result of investment, more specifically all other carmakers deciding they weren't willing to risk it, no matter how many papers said the simulations were correct. Tesla risked it, it worked exactly like the (mostly German made) theory and simulations said it was going to work, and now everyone and their mother (ie. even non-car companies) are using it. Result: Tesla has a patent on it, that nobody has licensed since they were working on it decades before the first Tesla engineer thought of it. The idea was literally available in CAD software before Tesla started to work on it (not that I want to claim there wasn't a LOT of design + validation + testing + integrating + ... work left to be done)
This principle is generally true for all Elon Musk companies, and most of their accomplishments/vision. SpaceX is not even close to the first to land a rocket, for example (that was McDonnel-Douglas). Nor were they the second, or the fifth. Oh and only one of the companies that attempted it before SpaceX needed 2 tries, all others succeeded immediately, or the company died, some succeeded, and the company still died. SpaceX, by contrast, needed 7 crashes before succeeding for the first time (one of their rockets never tried to land on account of blowing up during ascent, I'm counting that one), and 17 tries before they first tried to move it to production.
I'm not to say integrating everything, massively expanding the scope/scale of these applications, getting the investments, and getting it commercially operating isn't a gigantic accomplishment, but it is not inventing it at all.
Elon Musk's constant talk about inventing and "work from first principles" ... is therefore kind of total bullshit. He has never done that, and neither have his businesses.
Because neuralese is a more direct encoding of the latent space of these models than English is. It's just dumping the latent space relatively directly into the embedder. If you're another model and you have the same embedder this will actually be understandable, in fact it will be FAR more information dense than English. So something like Qwen would potentially be saying up to 5120 things using one token. Now in practice it's not going to be that bad, it's going to be like 20 things or so, and additionally going to be far more context dependent than any English sentence (meaning depending on what preceeds and follows it can mean drastically different things)
So you can turn it to English, but only to a LOT of English, and doing so would slow the model down a great deal, and it would be a lot more like a detailed thought than a sentence.
Regularly, yes. On a lot of these sorts of products, nothing happens without governments making deals first. Mostly because governments have a need to make sure they get weapons too, not just money for the components they make.
Perhaps should be described as "sale is forbidden by default, but deals are common".
This goes 100% for either completed weapons, or components that can be directly used as a weapon, then you have "dual-use", and the less directly it's a weapon, the more free you are to do what you want.
Can you name any examples? European countries and the EU as a whole don't have an equivalent of the US's ITAR 'See-Through' rule, which lets the US control the usage of a system that has any US components.
I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government. It has been done within Europe, but only for major components, such as Germany's blocking at one point of sales to Saudi Arabia.
But this is the one-component-is-the-weapon, with everything going in one direction version of such a rule. An F35 has 300,000 components from 19 countries, so you can imagine what a maze the agreements for that one are.
It's also not just about the weapons and the danger they pose. It's also about jobs. Know-how (both spreading and restricting know-how). And even the traditional "synergy" (you've designed helicopter blah, hence you make radio component so-and-so, so how about you manufacture NATO standard blah radios and antennas) and the occasional monopoly (it's kind of secret but there aren't many companies that can make the obvious alloy needed for the trust vectoring to name one obvious thing)
Our side is NATO, and we make weapons that are designed to push the global integrated worldview and human rights ("America and it's allies") that we espouse as an alliance. And this view permeates all weapons. For NATO guns, one, you'll never get ridiculous ammo stores (that would enable you to eliminate a population for example), we all work on these weapons together, design them together, and if you try to use your own ammo, everything will fail. Most NATO weapons are defensive. You aim a NATO weapon at a (small) target, it finds that target and either kills it or it disables itself and falls to the ground, essentially intact. Russian weapons are the total opposite: they're meant to kill and if they can't kill their target, they'll just kill whatever and whoever's nearby. Sometimes up to the point they kill the weapon's operators. They will fire "cheap ammo" and literally come with instructions on how to make it. They are meant to kill on a very large scale, without precision and they are most definitely not safe to use. This philosophical difference applies to everything from machine guns to nuclear weapons.
A quick Google search will find you plenty of European legislation. And you should look at those laws like the Belgian laws here, like they were a company "Values" document. That is how the EU/Belgium (and other countries) react "by default", but specific treaties explicitly create exceptions to those rules between specific parties.
So like this: exporting guns and ammo is certainly not something any country allows their companies to do, but most/all countries make specific exceptions in treaties.
This just happens to have the advantage that it makes it extremely easy for politicians to deceive voters about weapons. "Belgian law says it's illegal to export weapons". 100% technically true, and totally misdirects people into believing Belgium doesn't export weapons, which is absolutely false.
Meanwhile, Belgium exports ~50 million euros worth of weapons. But Belgium is just an example, it's not like the Netherlands or France or (definitely) UK, or the EU as a whole are different.
You missed the point. The example asked for was this:
"I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government."
That would be something like "Belgium says the USA can't sell F-35s to Israel because the wings are Belgian-made" similar to how the USA prevents ASML from selling their machines to China.
Oh that's what you want. In the clusterfuck with the Turkey involuntary withdrawal from the F35 program half the treaties were renegotiated (you see, can't have any Turk produce weapons unless he's a "genius", that would not be fair. In other news: the Turkish definition of genius is mostly being the son in law of Erdogan [1])
I believe this agreement is part of the restructuring after that cluster... Note that the agreement is both about production and buying. [2]
"Finland has required extensive domestic participation, with industrial cooperation valued at a minimum of 30 percent of the contract price of procuring 64 F-35A fighters. Under the agreement, Finnish firms will produce the F-35’s forward fuselage structures, including components intended for export aircraft. The agreement also includes ..."
As to how the EU is involved: https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-indus... (ie. that's where you go to ask for loans to start a factory for making F35 components, they have a page listing the deals ... somewhere). Note that this is one of the EU institutions that isn't in the budget (well, the loans aren't). They're not spending tax money to make those loans, they're printing money to make those loans.
So the Finnish government is making this deal, including details on export (and this is obviously weapons exports).
How is it an example of European governments preventing American weapons from being sold? Are you saying the Finns unilaterally decided that Turkey can't have F-35s, even if the USA wants to sell F-35s to them?
You misunderstand. Everything is prevented by law, with the purpose to make any change in production involve negotiations with the government, who then negotiates weapons/jobs/local production/... Without those negotiations, and the resulting exceptions to the law nothing can be sold, even dual use items are restricted.
And, of course, the other side of that coin: weapons export regulation is Europe is not something that is meant to actually prevent weapons export. Rather it is used like a company policy: it makes sure everyone regularly has to give the government something they want.
Which is, to put it mildly, not how politicians present those laws.
No, you misunderstand. You keep talking about things irrelevant to the key point.
Look at the political pressure the USA puts on ASML in the Netherlands to prevent them from selling certain products to China because those machines contain some American parts.
The question is explicitly when the reverse has happened, not some general info about European weapon exports or legislation.
Things like Wassenaar Arrangement and MTCR(that applies to a lot of hobby stuffs I'm interested in) are multinational and global. The US implementation is the most painful, but they're like non-Linux unices, sameish in concept and not like first-worlders get free passes.
(And these regs aren't complete nonsense; the technologies regulated by these are useful for guided munitions. It just so happens missile technologies are fully commoditized by now and also happens to be immensely useful for totally peaceful purposes too)
These, again, are export control restrictions at the point of sale and transfer, and the US follows them too. It's not the same thing as what we're discussing regarding the US's changing requirements regarding systems that embed its components.
Note that dual-use items (which Wassenaar regulates) and MTCR are not the same as the US's ITAR 'see through' rule which it uses to block third party sales of systems that contain even small numbers of US components.
For dual-use items, the EU's Directive 2021/821 governs things and broadly authorises exports to the United States through EU General Export Authorisations (EUGEAs) that don't require individual approval.[0]
In this case equality between men and women, but let's not pretend that for most ideologies that is any more than just one of many inequalities they would like to introduce. Sorry, "to have respected", as if that means anything different.
reply