> What is more difficult, building a military missile or the software that runs it?
"If software was easier compared to building the a missile then Anthropic is in the clear or something." Is that the line of reasoning to protect Anthropic from any wrongdoing?
"Others do it too" is not really a counterargument when Anthropic should've stopped this. They are yelling "AI is dangerous" the loudest so the least they can do is get their own monitoring in order.
or even paid for. They didn't say what version of Windows. It could be XP. There's still over 5 million computers running XP according to simple web search. I haven't touched Windows not much later than XP, so not really sure of the current state of running pirated Windows. Either way, GP's point is really lacking some basic reasoning
If Anthropic/OpenAI would've shown incredible results using these models then I'd be worried about this. Instead we get Codex and Claude Code, bloated and disappointing software. I'm sorry but "use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy." doesn't appear to be a real concern with these two companies.
- Help you find weaknesses in your case and what you can do to fix those.
- Rewrite your text in proper legalese (I do recommend to prepare the your arguments yourself to avoid over generalization from an LLM).
Of course you need to verify because of hallucinations but showing up is half the battle here. Big (tech) corps + internal bureaucracy makes it quite expensive for fight these cases. Especially if there are many different countries.
You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your account or google services going forward.
Then you sue them again in small claims court for the damages of not having access to your accounts (to which other online services require/are tied to which are not Google-owned properties) and have the judge force your reinstatement with a warning to Google that such punitive actions taken maliciously against the user will result in a prior fine*exponential multiplicative levied for each occurrence, with the base fine amount being the prior multiplicative fine issued.
That leaves Google with very few chances to fuck up before they're financially wiped out, and this is a ruling you can have issued in a small claims court.
How would you force the judge to do that? Has this strategy ever worked for anyone you can cite? Have you tried it yourself?
Otherwise, I'm not sure why just being able to imagine a knock out David vs. Goliath win against Google has any value whatsoever as a viable legal strategy.
It's certainly valid and it has been done in other situations, but the details are different. I don't know that of any case where it's been tried against Google. It's certainly reasonable to think it could work against Google, but the details of would it actually work in the real world? I have no idea. Even if there was precedent that someone could cite, that doesn't mean that your case would win.
If you really want to know, you need to consult a lawyer, not ask here.
Was there a follow up if he ever managed to collect on the $721 judgment?
EDIT: Ah, missed the follow up link at the end. No, he did not get any money.
Google appealed to a superior court (sending their lawyers this time) and the award was modified to $0.
So he didn't actually win, the online meme that "small claims are the one weird trick to beat the mega corps" doesn't usually hold up to scrutiny. I doubt throwing ChatGPT into the mix would have helped against their in-house counsel.
There is no need for a copy. If another can do most of what OpenAI/Anthropic can do at a fraction of the cost (like the Chinese models) then the moat evaporates.
the capability gap is underestimated. the raw unaligned base model from a pretrain is like the telemetry recorded from a particle accelerator - it's hugely valuable and not just because of the cost sunk building a collider.
the things are kept under air-gapped national weapons grade security measures not because it's literally going to escape and threaten the world but because if somebody walked out the door with a copy they would have everything. the capabilities we see at the surface are mostly the result of mining the great unknown space and attaching feeble control surfaces, ablating/lobotomizing dangerous areas, and fencing off illegal/secret/embarrassing ones.
Based off what? There’s pretty precise measurements of the capability gap where open weight models like Kimi K3 score higher than the latest flagship models just 6 months ago.
The capability gap is in the minds of the users but the frontiers' closed business models run opposite to it.
> the things are kept under air-gapped national weapons grade security measures
That's an enhancement of closed but not of moat
> because if somebody walked out the door with a copy they would have everything.
Including you and me? I'm not sure this is comforting news, despite the "trust me bro" asurances from behind the door where we can't see or verify anything.
I don't know about you but I would love to get my hands on a raw frontier base model - and a 16 node galaxy blackhole supercluster to talk to it. the capabilities currently being loboptimized for are just a narrow market-shaped slice that cheaper models can distill a competitive subset of but the untapped power of the base is a true technical moat.
about the benchmarks: the difference between a distilled competitive subset and the untapped base might be the difference that matters in any given task
FWIW, I meant "they would have everything... including you and me". It seems I wasn't clear enough and it sounded like "you and me... walk out the door with a copy" - obviously the latter isn't realistic, but the former is.
> the capabilities currently being loboptimized for are just a narrow market-shaped slice
Offensive capabilities aren't interesting to me except as a risk I have to consider. It might sound surprising but the intersection of offensive and practical-for-life capabilities is an almost empty set.
There is also a predictable relation between the input and output of a compiler w.r.t. the semantics of a programming language. Natural languages are ambiguous leaving room for the implementation to diverge that may not be obvious at first glance.
There are also plenty of things a compiler might not expose that end up being ambiguous. For example, C++ doesn't officially have a restrict keyword, so how can you express the fact that two memory regions never operlap and can be optimized? Unfortunately the reality is that if we had a language capable of truly expressing the programmer's intent we'd end up with a monster
Up until ~1800, the way societies handled this kind of depravity was to hit the bad actors with sticks or rocks until their skull opened up so the evil spirits could leave their bodies.
It's unfortunate that most societies have outlawed this practice. I'm certain if that were in place today, we wouldn't have this problem.
I've yet to hear any alternative solution that's as effective.
reply