Can’t wait to find out how big the investor subsidies were to make this model, alongside the subsidies for whatever it probably copied off (OpenAI? Anthropic?) It would be funny if it weren’t for the harm done in the process
> “open source”
> look inside
> no source
I’m sticking to the kratom analogy because it, unlike dynamite, is produced by a facility somewhere, nobody can tell what’s inside of it, the composition can be changed by surprise, and there’s no actual rules or way to figure out what responsible usage looks like. Maybe 10% of people will be fine forever with the mystery tool. Maybe their lack of addiction is the glitch.
At the very least, gun companies don’t have an anonymous suggestion box for who to kill, and they aren’t the ones sending out assassins to do the killing. And the assassin doesn’t live in a mansion funded by taxpayers and foreign interests.
We know the AI megacorporations are not profiting off it. Why would you pretend otherwise? Other you are very ignorant, or you’re being dishonest right now.
NSO Group co-founder Shalev Hulio travelled to Panama in 2013 on an Israeli diplomatic passport and told Panamanian immigration he would be staying at the Israeli embassy.
I can’t read the word Panama without thinking of the Panama Papers. And the journalist who discovered them and was subsequently assassinated with a car bomb.
The details of Hulio’s diplomatic passport have been revealed alongside new testimony from a former intelligence officer in Morocco that confirms the North African country had access to Pegasus — despite its claims that it has not used the spyware. The findings come from a new collaborative investigation into NSO Group coordinated by Forbidden Stories.
Kudos to Forbidden Stories for uncovering this corruption, because I didn’t expect it to be this international.
I wasn’t talking about the closed source models you use. I was talking about the cloud ones you were just discussing.
I read this Linus Torvalds quote out loud and my dog freaked out.
This is NOT some kind of " social warrior " project, never has been, and never will be.
In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons.
And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit . Not fear of new tools.
It’s important to note that this man’s contributions to Open Source can be taken freely, and he and his opinions can be thrown in the wastebasket at any time.
How vague of a guess is that when people rely on those closed systems? We all know Corporate AI is hiding the actual costs with creative accounting while they enjoy abusing the environment…
Isn’t it curious how the utopian fantasy that’s promised by every AI CEO seems to contradict pesky reality? At some point, you might even get worried that AI appears to inherently erode critical thinking skills.
Maybe people could responsibly use kratom to create better output too. Who knows?
Thinking about AI being used in conjunction with insurance at all makes me physically cringe. If somebody was looking for a tool to remove responsibility for denying claims or applying bias, it’s the tool for the job.
I know that’s not the side that you’re talking about here, but still, I don’t think I trust a system that’s basically Giant Autocomplete to handle this
citation needed.
Stupid leftists think orange man and AI bad? Cringe! Updoots to the left!
It’s really weird for Linus to reference “the open source thing” while encouraging people to use legally dubious closed-source software with legally dubious output
To be sure, Google’s market penetration across the web is a huge driver of encouraging people to switch browsers. It costs nothing to advertise on their own website! I just find it interesting that so many people on Windows actually do. If I was forced to choose between Edge and Chrome, I’d probably skip the hassle of installing an extra browser.
Lol you can say “OpenAI” without infringing on Sam Altman’s properties
OpenAI had argued that the word “open” has multiple possible meanings
Including “not open,” based on their behavior.
As far as I can tell, the data centers and that theft are mandatory for making the models to begin with. Everybody talks about ethical ones, but they don’t use them because they suck too much.
Computer hardware, training algorithms, and data models are absolutely technology, regardless of whether they are stolen or not. If you believe some technology (read: AI data centers) exhibits inherent evil, that’s great because I agree.
If data centers aren’t technology, what are they? Nature?
It’s undeniable that Microsoft makes this difficult, but Google Chrome has found its way onto nearly 75% of all desktops while Edge only enjoys around a 10% share.
Not only is it limited in its scope, it’s also good PR for AI. (Not quite as good as “accidentally” leaked Slack messages or strongly worded letters, but close.)