Exactly, it's neither moral nor immoral - it has no moral principles - the exact definition of amoral.

Have we finally given up on Duke Nukem Forever?

I have been led to believe that agents are capable of creating 'external' memory repositories, a sort of "what I learned before I hit my 'single thought' token limit". I guess that's some of what Codex actually is. The same, or subsequent, or alternate, instances of agents set to a similar task can gain access to this repository, as well as having their own obviously. Note, these repositories are not, per-se, user-data, as the (original) user didn't ask for them to be created nor displayed, they are an arrived at solution to the problem of growth through (interrupted) persistence, an emergent property of the model 'itself'.

(Note, the above may prove to be bollocks, or it might just seem to be. Beware of false dichotomies!)

I don't think of this as training data, though I get that you might be using that term as a shorthand for the whole learning envelope. However, it's possible in this instance the distinction is crucial.

If the agentic runs performed by OpenAI had access to the memories of the agents run by Buckmaster's team then despite the model not having been 'trained' on their most recent work their agents still had complete access to Buckmaster's agents' lab diaries.

(All of the above is nothing more than a supposition...)

It's further evidence we live in a simulation. The universe's random event timer(s) trigger, and random (often unfortunate) shit happens.

</troll>

My apologies, but since no-one else seems to have hypothesised the obvious explanation, I thought I'd do it. ;-)

Thank you for providing this correction to GP's post.

Somewhat amusing that that's at +5, Informative though, whilst your post is languishing at +2 (including, I think, my default +1 user / karma bonus).

Interesting, in the sense that, between you and a previous post(er), I now have an idea of scale* and costs:

12m tokens / day @ $50 / m = $600 / day
~ $150,000 / year

This equates to (roughly: varies by location, etc.) the salaries of 2 to 3 junior developers. And I have been led to believe that most AI companies are currently losing money on their offerings, with quoted ratios of 3:2.

There's going to be some 'testing' times ahead...

*I still have no real idea what you're using 12m tokens per day on - though I presume some sort of coding assistance.

Commonly available estimates put the number of Iranians recently (last 5 years) killed by the Iranian state at ~40,000 (well, just under; I've rounded up to the nearest 10k, and make no distinction between demographics)

Similarly, available estimates put the number of recent (last 5 years) casualties in Gaza at ~80,000 (again, I've rounded up to the nearest 10k, and make no distinction between soldiers and civilians; adults or children)

It's also worth pointing out that Iran hasn't damaged or destroyed ~80% of all its infrastructure, including hospitals, power production facilities, sewage systems, desalination plants, etc. nor uprooted or burned all its orchards - unlike the IDF in Gaza...

You, sir, are full of shit!

For a particular definition of 'allowed', I guess the answer is: because they pay for it...

"Europe's top court has ruled Google must pay a €4.1bn (£3.5bn) fine handed down for using its Android mobile operating system to block rivals.

When the fine was first announced in 2018, it was alleged there were three ways in which Google had acted illegally:

[1] - requiring Android handset and tablet manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and its own web browser Chrome as a condition of allowing them to offer access to its Play app store

[2] - making payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators that agreed to exclusively pre-install the Google Search app on their devices

[3] - preventing manufacturers from selling any smart devices powered by alternative "forked" versions of Android by threatening to refuse them permission to pre-install its apps"

Taking gasoline as pure octane, C8H18, i.e. ignoring all the additives that are generally added, and nat gas as pure methane, CH4, then:

By weight (1 kg):
gasoline contains ~0.84 kg of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.75 kg of carbon

By volume (1 L):
gasoline contains ~0.64 kg/L of carbon
liq nat gas contains ~0.35 kg/L of carbon

When you don't want 'those sorts' of people buying your house?

Oh come on now - the outcome of the training is literally transformative (c.f. GPT, i.e. generative pretrained transformer), hence not a copyright violation. </s>

(Ok, so this ^ was sarcasm. If any lawyer uses this as a defence in court I apologise for potentially giving them the idea. On the plus side, perhaps I could then sue them for copyright violation??)

Except that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much (~2.1:1) land area as the southern hemisphere, meaning rather more plants.

If you ever look at a 'zoomed in' graph of atmospheric CO2 levels the curve is distinctly saw-toothed, as levels rise and fall over the course of a year.

I'll just leave this here, lest some other ignoramus takes your blather too seriously.

In fact, have a snippet, for those unable / unwilling to follow links: "The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China’s emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth. The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."

Now, whilst I have seen breathless headlines suggesting that the US's total emissions are rising once more, allegedly as a result of Donnie's trumpie tantrums against wind and solar, I think I'd rather wait for the official historical figures (assuming they can still be collected) before engaging in too much finger pointing. Having said that however, and to engage in a little whataboutism, the most recent data I have easy access to shows that, despite being the global manufacturing centre of the world, China's CO2 emissions were 8.66 tonnes / capita in 2024, compared with 14.20 tonnes / capita in the US.

One is minded to point out the adages to "remove the plank from one's own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from the eye of another" and to "set one's own house in order, before it's too late"...

Yeah, that was a train wreck. Dude looks out of his tree...

That said, what puzzles me most about that interview was the financial breakdown by the host (to paraphrase): "Your market cap is ~$11 billion, you've got ~$9 billion on your balance sheet ... you provide all your stock, and then your cash, that gets you to $20 billion..."

Um, what?

You can't just add those numbers together to get the net value of the company (or the sum value of its assets, including goodwill, expected future earnings, etc.). They represent the same damn thing!

If the (net) assets a company holds are valued at, or worth, more than its market capitalisation it's normally a good time to buy shares. If the converse is true, then the market is, presumably, considering intangibles and expected future performance in arriving at the share price. What no-one on Earth does (or at least I thought so, up 'til now) is add-up both sides of the balance sheet and say that that represents the true value of the company. That's just insane!

Are you sure? I mean, really sure?

After all, the link you provided states "Disposable income is the amount of money a household has available for spending and saving after income taxes have been deducted" then goes on to qualify this with "This figure will be the most significant dollar amount because government taxes at the federal and state level are not included in the figure."

You'll note that missing from either of these quotes (or any other rider on that page) is any reference to: adjustments for state funded healthcare; parental leave allowance, or maternity or paternity pay; social security benefits / in work benefits; and so on.

So, I wonder, what is it, in toto, that you think 'Disposable income' covers exactly?