Some place between sometimes and often - I'm not here to argue that - researchers are the first to discover.

But it's also almost meaningless to just go, "I'm such an amazing realist, the worst case happens every time."

That's not really being realist. That's just you not knowing actual things, and having an emotion.

It's a way of reframing sloppy practices as a signal to your investors that your software has become powerful. Most of the horror stories about AI showing signs of becoming hyperintelligent are coming from the companies themselves, which should tell us something.

While the energy source of wind and solar are free, building and maintaining the plants is not free.

If all they were building were a single 100MW data center, sure: renewables would be cheaper to build. But they evidently are planning a major campus that will consume most of the plant's 615 MW output over the next 25 years.

A solar installation, in a favorable location, capable of supplying 600MW around the clock (with battery backup) would have to be roughly 1800MW in capacity. It would be among the largest inthe world, on the order of ten thousand acres in size at a build cost of maybe 2 billion. The battery backup system to ensure 99.9% uptime would be 9x the size of the largest li-ion grid storage system ever built, and set you back on the order of 4-5 billion dollars.

While it's probably cheaper to go renewable than build a *new* nuclear plant, if you can reactivate and one for just two billion that looks like a bargain, if you have a use for all that power. Inability to save money by load following is the financial Achilles' heel of this generation of reactors, but if you have a guaranteed customer for most of your output, years in advance, that's as close to an ideal economic case for them as anything could be.

ToS is the strongest argument, but the distillers are not parties to the ToS. They get their data from data brokers. It is possible that data brokers are violating the ToS, but it would be hard to write ToS that precluded running queries for third parties without creating problems for consultancies and other businesses. Even presuming the ToS could be written to preclude the data brokers doing that, it doesn't affect the resulting model.

But the general shape of the argument brings us right back to unclean hands: we worked hard on this model and it's not fair for you to profit off our work in a way that doesn't have our permission.

I think the fair-minded position is to see what people think when the documentary comes out. You're essentially arguing a negative here -- that there *can't* be anything of value that hasn't been said yet.

Also, I don't think saying something *new* is necessarily critical. Sometimes saying something obvious but in an interesting way is worthwhile.

In this case, Holmes gave access to the filmmaker. Obviously she has an agenda. If the filmmaker is smart, he has an agenda that's different from hers. If he knows his business he'll find something interesting to show you from that conflict.

Now looking at the trailer -- holy shit that woman gives off batshit crazy vibes. That's new to me. I expected her to be slick, persuasive, like Saruman in Lord of the Rings: someone. you'd need real strength of mind to resist being persuaded by. If I'd just handed someone like that my business card, I'd get it back on some pretext then head as fast as I could for the door.

It doesn't make it *right*, but it does make claiming it is *wrong* inconsistent with their own behavior. This could prevent the US companies from suing the Chinese companies seeking an injunction (due to the "unclean hands" doctrine), and probably blocks them from seeking monetary damages in most US jurisdictions.

And suing may undermine the US companies own intellectual property claims by exposing their shaky foundations. An AI model isn't *expression*, so it can't be copyrighted. Insofar as the service allows the underlying model to be deduced through regular usage, trade secret protections don't apply because that's *reverse engineering*, which trade secrets don't prevent.

This leaves violations of terms of service. But setting aside the dubious enforceability of anti-reverse engineering provisions, the Chinese companies may not even be parties to the ToS agreement if they are obtaining the model data through a network of contractors and shell companies.With only moderate paranoia, they can effectively shield themselves from some kind of US tort claim.

Which leaves them with the model they've created from the US company's model, but which the US company has no IP claim upon. If I download a DeepSeek model that's been (hypothetically speaking) trained on Claude, Anthropic might not like that, but what can they do about it?

It's a strange situation. US investors are spending cumulatively on over half a trillion dollars a year in the hope of owning a breakthrough frontier model that is the end of the economic world as we know it. But the essence of the model might not be intellectual property at all.

Usefor for grandma, who doesn't understand wifi or connections. Except that i deliberately don't give my TV my wifi password or connect its ethernet. But I can't control the neighbors leaving their guest wifi unprotected, so my data can still be exfiltrated.

Think of the categories as fixed, and the people moving *through* them. Over 65s are exiting the category at a lower rate.

Please tell me eadon.com is yours

The better the tracking data, the more targeted the impression, the higher the clickthru rate. Crafting tracking consent dialogs in a way that favors one app or the other is going to increase the efficiency of campaign placements that target users of that app, rather than campaigns run by app developers who experience a lower percent of users consenting to track.

And they're welcome, as a business to swallow those aquisition expenditures, or fund their own Canadian content, or not do business here.

The list of developed countries that don't have domestic cultural protection policies is low. The US doesn't have one because of its size (or I'll throw you a bone - HOW AWESOME THEY ARE) - it simply doesn't need one.

Kind of hilarious in light of how pro-protectionist things have swung there. If the US audience started consuming predominantly anime TV, movies, books, etc overnight (purely just because of how good they are, right?) you'd bet your ass US would do the exact same thing.

What you don't get is that French is useful for many people - it just wasn't useful for you - and you project that because to you, personal experience is reality. Calling Mandarin, Spanish, Hindi, and Arabic more useful languages for living, identifying with other citizens, and employment in Canada is fucking bananas - and I'm married to a Taiwanese woman and speak some Mandarin!! Nothing you've said has changed my mind. Your points are noted, but still remarkably dumb.

so why aren't they given force adoption

I feel like we need a "take Murdoch5 to a real job" day or something. I'd literally pay to sit you down some time and explain how the real world works.

You are entirely correct. I took another look at what the law actually required and I am definitely crying wolf (at this point). Thanks for taking the time to point this out to me.

There is definitely a slippery slope there, but I agree with you, California is far enough away from the event horizon of that slope that my histrionics are not warranted. Not only that, but the carve out for Linux actually is helpful. Thanks once again.

It's more a case of the fox being in charge of the chicken coop; or bank robbers gaining control of the bank.

The job of the press in a democracy is to hold officials up to scrutiny.

That's definitely hysteria.

Yes, if it's out there on the internet, AI can scrape it and it can be used for training. And there's only so much you can do about it.

That has nothing to do with being able to run AI on your own network, on your own system. You can run AI locally on an airgapped PC. Your data is as safe as the physical integrity of your PC or network.