It would help with these sorts of extradition problems of criminals.

Hahahaha! In a civilized world, maybe the USA should agree to recognize the ICC?

*for starters*.

bump parent up

Depends. Are we including five fingered discounts?

AI may have found its niche as entertainment in its own right

Some of us have no sense of humour, you insensitive clod!

Does that make you smarter than a superhuman AI?

Let's not conflate speculations on the implied mechanism used for providing summaries by AI with requirements of correctness of summaries implied by consideration in a legal service agreement.

Snarky reply, I've done mine!

I have indeed thought it through. I have dealt with machine learning models for 30 years, and I've seen multiple generations of recycled broken ideas, and I'm seeing them recycled now.

However, open source is not about giving out a model for cheap/free to whoever asks. It is about giving away the foundations that allow complete duplication, so that other members of humanity, smarter or more informed, can contribute and/or branch away from the work.

The cost of training is irrelevant. It merely reflects the low quality of the processes and ideas that are being used by the companies that currently build them. It's by sharing the raw materials and allowing others to solve the same problems better that efficiency and progress is made.

The current paradigms of pretraining, fine tuning, transfer learning, etc lead to an enforced conceptual modularity that is just a way to embed a middle man economy into the science: Some provider takes care of data for others, builds a foundation model for others, and they can tinker on top of that. It is counter productive and scientifically a dead end, while giving you the feeling of progress that comes from taking psychological ownership of the full system when all you've done is tinkered at the edge by specializing an existing model.

You don't get anything new that way, only epsilon variations on an existing body of work. It's a dead end, because successful intelligences in the real world all around us do not need anywhere near the resources expended on AI and intelligent biological systems do not function anywhere near the way these AI systems do. For example, nobody reads the whole internet just to be able to talk about a topic, and no animal brain works like a deep network.

If you want (scientific) progress, you must break out of the tinkerer mindset. Take the full set of preferred elements that build the full state of the art system, and be prepared to do radical surgery at any level that makes sense, because the current architectures are simply bad. You can't do that with existing "open" systems that lock you into these architectural paradigms and choices.

Your example of Olmo talks about openness, but I had a look at their website and I don't see a link to raw data archives. There's instructions how to train a model, and they discuss a token data collection called Dolma 3. But tokens are not raw data, most of the implied information is already lost once you've tokenized. They do a good job of describing in detail their process for dataset curation on their GitHub page though, which deserves credit. It's worth reading, because it shows how their models are being locked into patterns that limit them from the get go, long before the first weight is even being trained.

Excellent! You've identified the problem! Now, what are you going to do about it?

You may be right but I live in hope that the golden boys will actually do the impossible and kick Fuck to the curb, so that the company can finally attempt the long road back from clusterfuck.

So you'd rather wait to fix the bigger social problems first before fixing smaller ones? I don't know, I think it's good to attack the smaller problems first. It makes you feel good about small victories, you gain experience with similar problems, and it prevents analysis paralysis. It also builds momentum, everyone likes a winner.

You also have to remember that minors aren't full people, they are legal dependents and censorship is the wrong word to use in this case. It is absolutely the right and obligation of guardians and governments to make decisions for them about what they can and cannot do on the Internet, among other things. The kids will grow up soon enough, and be free to choose by then.

There is nothing open about any of the "open" AI shops. Every "open" model from them is the equivalent of a free mp4, that runs on a simple player, to whet your appetite and make you want to rent their more powerful models.

A real open project supplies the preferred components for completely rebuilding the software. That means, you should get from such a project all the source documents (not preparsed token datasets) for training and all the training scripts they use themselves and all the specs. If you don't, it's only a pretend open AI project.

Inflation is not being treated as noise, if it were then we wouldn't index it away, we would just ignore it. The fact we are indexing it away is due to treating it as a real predictable trend.

However, the purpose of indexing it away is to normalize, due to the recognition that it's not the absolute prices that matter, only their relative relationships

Inflation is a flaw in the measuring instrument we're using (fiat currency), kind of like if you have a metallic ruler and you increase the ambient temperature, then the expansion will make the inch markings on the ruler be longer than an actual inch.

Your Streisand Effect definition is too narrow, imho. The issue isn't disclosure against the company's wishes, it's the increased awareness by the public arising from consequences of the company's initial policy choice of halting operations and service to the Russian public.

I rise to speak!

'Tis but risible, in the extreme!

Recently, even!

Yours in rice,

Rhys