Maybe, though this lawsuit is different in respect to the piracy issue. Anthropic is paying the settlement because they pirated the books, not because training on copyrighted books isn’t fair use which isn’t necessarily true with the other cases.
I call bs on training a RL agent to literally output strokes. The way each image renders is a dead give away that this is just using a text to image model, then convert it to svg, and finally animate the svg paths. They might even bypass the svg conversions with clever mask reveals. I was able to achieve the same thing in about 5 mins. https://giphy.com/gifs/rFVxSxZMlflZUX4TqI
This makes sense as long as people continue to value using the best models (which may or may not continue for lots of reasons).
I’m not entirely sure that AI companies like Cursor necessarily miscalculated though. It’s noted that the actual strategies the blog advertises are things used by tools like Cursor (via auto mode). The important thing for them is that they are able to successfully push users towards their auto mode and use more usage data to improve their routing and frontier models don’t continue to be so much better AND so expensive that users continue to demand them. I wouldn’t hate that bet if I were Cursor personally.
Yes, though the article is about this. Forgivable given the paywall though.
TLDR is women are more employed because healthcare continues to see growth in jobs and employment women; also, the software engineering job apocalypse is probably structural not AI, and already bouncing back.
This is so sick. I agree that it’s a little lame that we have all these AI capabilities right now, robotics improving, and all we can think of making is humanoid robots. Like I want a spider/squid hybrid robot running around my house
> “We have built in roles that auditors can use and have used extensively in the past but would not give the ability to make changes or access subsystems without approval,” he continued. “The suggestion that they use these accounts was not open to discussion.”
From the previous post, they had auditor roles built in that they purposely chose to go around
I’m not sure I fully understand the rationale of having newer mini versions (eg o3-mini, o4-mini) when previous thinking models (eg o1) and smart non-thinking models (eg gpt-4.1) exist. Does anyone here use these for anything?
o1 is a much larger, more expensive to operate on OpenAI's end. Having a smaller "newer" (roughly equating newer to more capable) model means that you can match the performance of larger older models while reducing inference and API costs.
If fixing trade was the goal of these tariffs, Trump had other, better options. He did not listen to policy advisors who have spent a long time writing about how to prepare the US for a war with China and rebalancing global trade. This is why it’s been a PR disaster, not because it was preemptive decisive action.
Also, if fixing trade imbalances is the purpose of these tariffs, that brings into question the constitutionality of this. I know nothing matters anymore, but how quickly he forgets to say "fentanyl" when justifying these. Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.
> Presumably, even if people supported this tariff strategy, they might still disagree that the president should be the one doing it.
You can sort of count me among this number. Not this wild tarrifs everyone strat, but I've long thought we should have tarrifs on goods from countries like China that are happy to exploit their workers to steal market share. 54% doesn't seem crazy to me. The thing is to actually encourage investment they'd need to a) phase in over time to give companies a chance to react, and b) be something more permanent than an executive order.
If it was the legislature putting in place something more targeted and gradual I'd probably find myself arguing for the Republican position on something for the first time in a long time.
This is also where I am. I think trade barriers are a tool we've abandoned unnecessarily, but in order to be reasonable there need to be specific requirements for their use:
1) The barrier needs to be imposed and removed under specific, transparent criteria that are under the control of the party you are negotiating with. Specifically what I have in mind are that the barrier would apply to industries that don't meet specific environmental and human rights standards, but my reasonableness criteria extends to anything that is under the control of such an industry or its regulators.
2) The initial implementation must be telegraphed years in advance, and there must be some sort of assurance that it won't be removed on a whim. In a system like the U.S., this means it cannot be an executive decision, and must come from Congress.
3) Barriers must be phased in over time. Don't go from zero to 30% at once.
4) There needs to be a coherent theory of how one might source the thing we're taxing without paying the tax. Otherwise it doesn't accomplish very much.
The current policy violates all four of my conditions. Which doesn't matter a ton -- there is no good reason for anyone in power to listen to me -- but that's just how I'm thinking about it.
It is saying something that Biden did not roll back some of Trump 45's tariffs (maybe related to chips?) on China when he took over in 2020. I agree with you; some thoughtful strategic tariffs could have produced good things.
