If it were open source and someone cared enough to fork it, then presumably there are open licensed contribution to the repo that Siemens won't own the copyright to.

What happens to those? Can they be taken closed source at all?

Just to note, the WSL containerisation approach is horrible for anything I/O intensive. WSL 1 had ELF binaries supported by the kernel and ran natively, this is a far superior approach to WSL 2's containerisation when it comes to raw speed.

I benchmarked this a few months ago and it was between 300%-600% slower on raw disk performance I/O.

It's not real. It's not intelligent. It's a probability matrix - a very good one, but that's what it is. When people say they 'convinced it', what actually happened was they started using language recognisable in a subset of the model's training data and the model responded using probability with data from that same subset as it's statistically closer.

In this case, they used language which is the kind floating around with people negative to AI, and so the AI constructed a sentence using data in their "negative to AI" section. Nobody got convinced of anything. It's very impressive, but it's 'just' a probability matrix.

I just wanted to let you know that you have successfully driven me off of /., after some 25 years.

Not just you, obviously, the site has been in steep decline for a long time, but you were such a huge asshole that you managed to be the last straw. So, congrats for that. I won't be back.

I was listening to this on BBC news on my commute this morning (in the UK). They said it attacked a Medicare site, which is the Australian national health system. My immediate thought was "ah, so someone in the US asked it to do something with Medicare records and forgot to limit it to just the US then". So off the AI trots to do exactly what it was asked to do - "collect records on Medicare', without any regard to geography at all. Hence this 'hack'.

I mean, I'm just guessing so that opinion is worth what you just paid for it. It does sound plausible to me though.

"there is no right or expectation of privacy in public"

I agree (UK so different laws, but the principle is the same). However I increasingly feel this needs to be revised somehow. I'll admit up front I don't have all the answers here, but just intuitively it feels to me that this principle predates the era of cheap, automated mass surveillance whether government or private.

In the UK, privacy is protected via the Human Rights Act and UK GDPR. It provides for some level of protection, but it really seems to me that specific rules to address this kind of blanket recording need to start coming in. The definition of 'commercial', for instance. Is it commercial use if I record you on my glasses and then post it to Youtube? Arguably yes, since YouTube is a company and derives revenue from that. Same for Meta. But it's very, very far from clear to me if that claim has enough weight to prevail. A specific set of rules to address what is essentially a new phenomenon needs to be brought in.

Recording is not new. Photographing is not new. But the ease and scale via which it can be achieved, manipulated, tracked...that is new.

More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.

What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?

Is that on top of the 30% federal tax credit?

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.

Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.

Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.

Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?

And JD Vance called him Hitler. Trump accepts changes of heart as long as they include sufficient groveling and self-humiliation. SBF's problem is he doesn't currently have any money, and doesn't have a lot of friends to put up cash for him either. If SCOTUS will overturn his fine on a technicality and he can get some or all of that money back, then he'll have the cash to buy a pardon. Obviously he needs to get it done in the next 2 years, four months.

The thing here is that there isn't "Apple". There is Apple-the-parent-company, and Apple UK. From the perspective of law, Apple-the-parent is a supplier to Apple UK. Apple UK will have been ordered not to disclose information, including its suppliers. Therefore nothing restricts Apple-the-parent other than its contract as a supplier to Apple UK.

Yes I'm aware that sounds odd, but I deal with these situations fairly regularly (although am not any form of lawyer, this is absolutely not legal advice etc.). Contracts between international entities are common, and Apple US would not be in breach of US law but would be in breach of contract and would place Apple UK in breach of UK law by doing so.

Am not taking the UK government's side on this - I personally think the order is nuts and yep, I'm British. I'm just trying to show why the relationship would be more complex. Legally Apple US could disclose of course. However I'll bet you it has a supplier contract with Apple UK, a legally distinct entity, that says something like "the terms of this agreement will be bound by UK law". Hence it would be in breach of contract, and that could place Apple UK at legal risk in the UK.