...but that sure won't stop me from passing judgment!

This sounds like a clear case of "AI makes it so easy to find bugs now, that we don't need to pay out cash to incite others to do it anymore."

My understanding is that the code leak covers the client-side tool, not the LLM. Did I misunderstand?

Because there isn't any reason why the LLM would know all of the capabilities of the tool. The LLM would only "know" whatever documentation the tool provides about itself in the posts it sends to the LLM as part of the user's posts. That and possibly information about the tool that might be in training data or available online for the tool to retrieve via a web scour.

Aside from it just being a scientific research project, in practice even if they were produced in combination it's almost certain that they would be refined and purified for medicinal use.

But it would be much easier to not have to separate them and do one molecule per plant/field.

That aside your monoamine oxidase would prevent all but the psylocin from being orally active. Maaybe if the tobacco were very carefully dried and not fermented you could smoke it.

Now if they were to engineer in some harmaline/telepathine and put it into a tomato you could make some very special marinara sauce. The acids would act like a 'lemon-tec' and heating could perhaps be doing some decarboxalating. I have no idea if people experiment with mushrooms and ayahuasca simultaneously.

I can't wait for the Epstein Class to start raiding pasta shops to protect their black markets. :/

In New Hampshire people have, in RADAR cases, been able to subpoena the operators, the calibrators, the calibration certificates, and the source code, on these bases.

The judge allows it, the prosecution drops the case.

One strategy is to demand a trial on every small fine to tilt the economics in favor of liberty.

Follow the money.

This stinks of sabotage inflicted by unethically motivated actors.

Presuming they're not just incredible fools, which we ought not assume.

Nah, AWS provides logistics to military and intelligence and has for quite a while.

It's tough to argue, "these aren't military targets, we just rent the equipment and provide services to the military for hundreds of billions of dollars."

Which is probably what people will argue.

Do they only have to state a reason or does somebody have to adjudicate whether that reason is validly "justified"? We have a Public Utilities Commission here that pretends to do such things.

Or is this one of these, "you can't know, so try it and a judge will tell you what the law was" sort of things?

Maybe somebody who understands Italian jurisprudence can clarify their theory of law.

Agreed.

Also Major Tom shouldn't try to fix anything on a spacecraft if it's somebody else's job.

I don't want to say I heard Mission Control on NASA TV reading down a procedure to tell an ISS commander how to tie his shoes but it felt like that.

Velcro, I guess.

Most helpful comment of the week.

Much kudos.

Yes, and they didn't notice that the lab tests were all done with plastic gloves.

I don't know, I went back to CPAN after I came to understand the socioeconomic and cultural ramifications of mandatory white space.

Papers, please?

"They yearn for the greenscreens."

It baffles the mind that Microsoftware - known for decades for being unreliable shit - is allowed on space missions at all, no matter how uncritical the role. The potential for malware alone is ludicrous. "Hey, pay us 2500 bitcoins if you want your space capsule back".

Then again, I figure the days when NASA did the right stuff are long past.

Proprietary software is written under unrealistic deadlines set by suits who want to cut costs in order to fatten their profit margins. It is natural that the resultant quality will be lower than that of open source solutions, most of which are written by industry veterans who have the time and the motivation to build them well.

Maybe NASA should think this through.

The Public Markets have rules and laws that incentivize very destructive and predatory behaviors. Corporations behave like psychopaths to hit quarterly numbers for 'fiduciary duty' laws.

Private assets don't have these so they can build real companies with an eye on the future.

But private companies don't have nearly as much access to capital because all the investment money goes into retirement because of stupid tax laws which goes into psychopathic public companies.

And then Blackrock / State Street / Vanguard collude to tell these companies how to behave socially and politically, often against the interests of everyone else in society.

Of course this could be done poorly but the idea has merit. Congress is most likely to screw it up, but who knows, maybe they won't.

That's peak optimism for 2026.

This is a weird situation.

If the license is changed it's no longer AGPL, it's a unique license.

If the license has restrictions then the copyright is violated by not adhering to the license.

The above makes it sound like both parties want to have it both ways.

I would just give the Russians proper attribution but the European governments hate Russia so much that they couldn't possibly do that. This is a problem with having governments run open source projects.

In the en it's probably going to be like Russian gas which they sanction except for not freezing to death in the winter, when they just look the other way and stay alive to hate the Russians another day.

The whole damn thing stems from some royal cousins hating each other in the 1830's. America was designed to "eff that noise" but every stupid American politician wants to act like a European so Americans get dragged into their stupid wars and other zero-sum games.

Open Source software is supposed to be a non-zero-sum game and the licenses are supposed to create the conditions for that. Maybe FSF should consider a v4 to improve the situation. Anybody seen Eben Moglen lately? Last I heard some whackadoodles at FSF were mad at him. Maybe a post-FSF license is needed.

"Play nice, children."