> Irregular wasn't involved in the OpenAI/HuggingFace incident.

It was [1]. It's understandable that you assumed it wasn't because the article didn't cite the sources on this claim. I agree with the rest of your points.

1. https://openai.com/index/third-party-cyber-evaluations-invol...

From the article you linked: "Editor’s Note: These are separate from the Hugging Face security incident"

Thank you for the correction.

Bullet trajectories are deterministic. A better analogy would be "caused a pair of trained fighting dogs to bite a passerby by leaving the gate open". There is some uncertainty and variation in the system, though gross negligence and willful endangerment is key.

Can you give some more information for buyers who want to route orders directly to sellers instead of via Amazon? Right now the only benefit for using Amazon is a unified shopping interface and free shipping using Prime.

If you're proposing a law that would not be in Dario's best interest, why address the post to him?

I explained this in the post. He seems like a genuinely good person who might actually do something this great.

He sells himself as an ethical guy, and doing things that are broadly positive for everyone even if they're against your own personal self-interest is basic ethicality.

Dude this site is so funny at times.

Incredible.

Yes, why would you ever address someone with something that is not in their best interest. Especially people that have power.

I agree. We should never do that and let them just live in peace and do their thing.

It is understandable that you think this is the case as someone who is not above the age of 50. You will see that health and life insurance premiums rise precipitously once you reach certain milestones. Once you reach 90 years old, you will find that car insurance companies will discontinue your policy based on a single traffic ticket.

We replaced preexisting condition coverage with age-based tiered pricing. If you doubt me it's trivial to validate this using your state's ACA marketplace.

Incumbent rent-seekers want regulatory capture to insulate them from externalities. Dog bites man.

Is there an implication of violation of ZDR here? Not a challenge. Just a request for clarification.

to my knowledge the mathematicians did not have ZDR so it would be incorrect to assume OAI violated such a thing.

I'm suggesting audits, not suing... if that is the implication.

So use bedrock or vertex or whatever. Those are the ZDR offerings. Or was it your intention to insinuate that the major cloud providers are conspiring with openai to violate their contractual obligations to their customers?

If my company finds any evidence of OpenAI violating ZDR, we'll sue for breach of contract and fraud, and collect damages. I think we'll be able to afford the bridge you're selling. You've got the title and title insurance, right?

Sure you will little bro. You signed away your right to arbitration a long time ago.

You realize OpenAI hired Apple employees and covertly had them stay working at Apple to steal from them. You think they're scared of your lawyers lol?

I'm certain my company didn't agree to arbitration, big bro. Our lawyers are putting the fries in the bag.

Isn't OpenAI being sued by Apple for their little stunt?

If you're saying "the big bad guys always win anon, just take the black pill," then there are tons of counterexamples. Remember Uber paying Google a sweet Bil for pulling this same trick with LIDAR firmware?

In practice a user will find the squat toilet to be superior until the user count increases above a dozen per hour. Then a single user will carelessly engage the spray hose and saturate the entire area. The area around the pit will be inundated with muddy water. Remediation requires a mop and bucket, which is likely only performed once daily.

An anatomically inferior sitting toilet in similar settings will often be soiled by careless users. However, a conscientious user can tidy their contact surfaces with toilet paper.

This has been my observation from my travels in the three continents I have been able to observe squat toilets in use.

> a conscientious user can tidy their contact surfaces with toilet paper.

I don't understand, because in a squat toilet, there is no contact surface!

Anthropic, OpenAI, GDM, and Meta spend more on training than other labs by an order of magnitude. If they felt safe reducing this spend they would. These labs fear getting outcompeted.

Again, I am talking about inference, not training. Please read.

I indeed failed to understand your point. Isn't that what they already do with Claude Haiku, GPT-5.6-Terra, etc?

That's the goal, but those smaller models don't match the price:performance of leading open-weight models, which is why companies are switching away (as explained in TFA).

The open weight labs figured out some secret sauce that (so far) big name labs are unable to replicate, so instead of competing, they're going on the defensive with claims of distillation attacks.

Again, in the friendly article, only one company is on record. The article allows the reader to make whatever inferences she may want to make.

How do you think they fund training? This is just as asinine as insisting that drug manufacturers only price medications based on production costs.

Less opex = more profits. They can use that money to fund training. I don't see how that could possibly be a bad thing.

I'm not sure why this style of cocksure Zitronesque comment is so trendy. It seems strange to make this statement, as if one has teleported to September 2026 from the end of the universe. Commenters in this vein aren't looking back to see that Anthropic and OpenAI models were the only truly usable ones for software development at the beginning of the year. Even Deepseek, which was and is revolutionary, was not useful for independent code commits longer than a few dozen lines.

It certainly is possible that Anthropic and OpenAI are doomed to bankruptcy, but without a known drop in revenue it seems exceptionally confident to make such a certain claim.

Did you read the article? It’s not some future predicting theory. Open AI and Anthropic losing these workloads is what’s happening today.

Did you? There was a single data point noted in the article. AT&T is a large company. What fraction of total US commercial inference spend does it represent?