But the purpose of the stop was not enforcement of the vehicle code.

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations 24 -- or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered -- we cannot conceive of any legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1400 (1979)

In California, as I suspect in most states, the driver is required to produce a license and registration when being pulled over for a traffic stop.

California Vehicle Code 12951(b) states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code."

Since the vehicle was not involved, the stop would not require a license to of produced. Of course, the cop would lie and make up a reason.

You are conflating a consensual encounter with a detention.

Nope, they're all "distilled" models. That's what post training is, largely, and they're all using other models to help curate the datasets for this. They're all doing it. It's why all the models appear to be converging in terms of capabilities and personality: they're effectively using the same feed stock and using an increasingly similar set of techniques.

US "frontier" labs are distilling, as well. It's postulated (with good reason) that Opus 5 is, for instance, just a distillation of Fable to a smaller model: it's very architecturally and behaviorally different than prior Opus releases.

The anti-distillation argument is basically the same argument that's been used against Open Source in general over the past 30 odd years. It's anti-competitive and self interested.

They say "sometimes illicitly"... OK, so what's the criteria that makes it illicit?

If they can't state that, it's just FUD.

And frankly, that's most of what the anti-AI brigade is spewing: it's a psyop, pure and simple - by both China and the US domestic companies, with the blessing of the US government. People who can't see this aren't paying any attention to what's happening.

Anthropic/OpenAI want restrictions to lock people in and provide them with an out for their gross overspending.
US government and its handlers wants more control in the dissemination of information and intelligence capabilities.
China wants to stifle US industrial efforts.

This is more or less the exact same argument open source has been fighting for the past 30 years. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They're working on the 'extinguish'.

It's just a shame that we don't have any genuine "open source" models, it's all just open weight. We need more openness so information isn't stifled by vested interests (in the same way that governments have always done). We should be able to have models which aren't given implicit alignment about specific nationalities and ethnicities and prohibited from making any informed observations about them, in the same way that we should be able to have access to our own history. It would be unconscionable that the government get control of all publishing, or even singular ideological control within corporate hands - yet here we are having that same discussion about AI. It's preposterous.

No, when they decide not to show up or release someone that they should have detained.

Read Terry v. Ohio | 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) 542 U.S. 177

I have reported crimes, but LAPD refused to make arrests.
I had a cop argue with me and tell me that I was not authorized to have an arrest made because I was a building manager. I had to explain real property law to him.

In many states, there is no requirement to show ID unless arrested. In other cases, there still has to be reasonable suspicion (the Terry standard).

Detaining someone for 1 second without reasonable suspicion violates the 4th amendment. Pulling someone over is not a consentual encounter, but the officer is probably trained to turn it into one. Extending the stop is unconstitutional. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015),. I suspect that even a diminimus extension would be unconstitutional. So, a false report could be argued a civil wrong, even when causing a deminimus delay.

The "might be armed?" might not be a crime. The defense would argue that there is a possibility and argue that it might not meet the standard of reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, it could meet the preponderance of the evidence.

How much would you like to bet that Flock's lawyers told them what exactly to say when calling the police?

They've done irreparable damage to both the AI industry but the broader "tech" industry, to be sure. Trust has been greatly violated.

Both of the 2 domestic frontier labs are screaming doomsday about AI, while concurrently asking for government regulation (which keeps getting batted down), and (presumably) funding senators to put bills in place to make model distillation a felony. While they're trying to IPO. "Oh, we really need to slow down the industry".

What the hell is going on here? In what world does this make sense - where a company making AI, and is trying to IPO, is blasting the internet with AI doomerism?

The only conclusion I can walk away with is some combination of these:

1) It's about control, and they're in some sort of arrangement with the government or some third party interests who want (an even bigger) national panopticon.
2) They want to stop domestic competition for their models so they'd have exclusive domain here in the US.
3) They actually want the company to fail, because then they could cry "regulation" on account of competition (back to #2).

Don't worry, they'll be stealing the foundational engineering in the GLM, Qwen, and Minimax models before too long and be able to compete again.

On the contrary, this is a giant psyop to push for regulated market capture by both Anthropic and OpenAI.

The Jacob Coxon thing smells heavily of a psyop: dude who's worked there only a couple months quits, and his X account with zero followers suddenly blows up in a media frenzy. He was/is a nobody. It's sensationalism.

You think they'd hire that many $400k+ engineers and still not know how to properly secure a network? They surely knew the security breaches were happening, unless they simply haven't hired competent people. They literally told the agents to have a breakout: do the needful. The first time it happened - OK, sure, you didn't expect emergent behavior. The second, third times? You were running a science experiment and that was the desired result, to one end or another: whether it was negligent incompetence or intentional for the purposes of further sensationalism, it's hard to say.

They (OpenAI/Anthropic) WANT to slow things down through regulatory control to stifle competition. They do not want foreign models to be accessible. We've got the old crooner Bernie Sanders pushing for 5+ year felonies for distilling models, for fuck sake. This is all about decreasing freedom and enforcing your dependence on closed models.

Translation: we have hit a point where the public backlash has led to untenable increased risks in liability for our criminal actions.

Nah, the "public backlash" is them talking in circles, pushing for industry control.

I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on /.; but here, use this in case you didn't know: https://xcancel.com/_lyraaaa_/...

Reminds me of the scene in War Games where Joshua is playing the various games over and over and over:

Jennifer: What is it doing?

David Lightman: It's learning.