Correct. The proper response is "I don't answer questions". And if they detain you, "I don't answer questions without a lawyer present".

The proper question is why should you be required to answer such a question if it's not related to a traffic stop. Your response is riddled with assumptions that first, the officer is investigating another crime, in which case indeed they may have questions to ask. A robbery? Do they have a description of the vehicle? Does it match yours, even minimally? If not, they really don't have any evidence on which to base a further expansion of the stop. Nonetheless, if you go to trial, you're not going to be required to say yes, that was my car. Let them prove it was your car. And in this case at the stop, all of what you're describing is more or less entirely inadequate for detention. Innocent until proven guilty is part of this. If they have reasonable suspicion, of course they can expand on the stop. If they're just fishing around, where you're coming from, where you're going, no.

Consider:

Traffic stop. Officer is making 'small talk'. "Where ya goin?". Where ya comin from?".

These are generally not 'small talk'. They are fishing questions, cop asking for info that could lead to suspicion, and detention while they dig for more.

And these sorts of questions can generally be answered by, simply, "None of your business, officer".

Every subsequent question, such as "I'm just making small talk", or "Hey, no big deal", or "What's the problem, you have something to hide?" are all just follow up fishing questions. And deserve no answer.

During a traffic stop, Flock gives officers information they would normally be lawfully denied, like "Where ya coming from?". Flock sidesteps your right to constitutionally refuse such information (and in the absence of reasonably articulable suspicion or other evidence, during a traffic stop, denies the officer the right to demand such information) and as such is a blight on constitutional protections. Flock must be better controlled, or abandoned.

And officers using Flock to look up the plates of their ex, former landlord, or the random guy who gave them a dirty look at a stop light are plainly violating these individuals' rights, and must be sanctioned. And the supervision of the abuses systems similarly sanctioned. Meaningful sanctions, every incident.

The Government rarely surrenders access to information. They seek power at every opportunity. In America, only the Constitution, and adherence to law, can nominally restrict this.

Ultimately it won't matter either way. Open source models will get better. They don't even need to achieve absolute parity with the frontier models they just need to get to 'good enough for most tasks most normies need to do'.

Some of them are probably already knocking on the door of that, and where they fail the frontier models often do as well.

Even if GenAI has dramatically increasing your business productivity, $100 a month per white collar workers becomes a pretty big expense item on the balance sheet pretty quickly. GPUs get better and cheaper all the time, eventually the market will deliver memory at reasonable costs again.. Hardware under the desk is usually cheaper than hardware behind the glass or in the cloud. Especially as the upgrade cycle has stretched from 2 years to 5 and longer. The open models get better, the GPUs get a few more compute units, in some not so distant future 32 of VRAM becomes such that it fits in $`000 price target Graphics/AI Accelerator package...even if that turns the $300 mini PCs you are putting in the cubes into $1300 dollar mini PCs, well if you get a least a year of use out them its cheaper than general Claude subscription.

Given the cloud AI boys can't make money at that price point now, it should be clear the model of selling everyone and the brother a subscription isnt realistic. It is going to make more sense for most people to 'own something'.

This is not say if you hosting some server with agents, or doing very specialized engineer or medical work as as opposed to more general office work Cloud AI won't be the sensible path forward. It very well could be, probably will be. If on the other hand your job is cleaning up the South East Region P&L spreedsheet for the your chain of HVAC dealers probably not so much; or if you're a home maker need to work up Dinosar birthday invites for little Tommy's sixth..

I think there is room to argue though, that distillation might violate copyright while training on large volumes of large material does not.

At that point you are modeling a model. I think you could argue that it is a bit like copying a novel where you hand type it; adding lots of typographical errors a long the way; get laze and leave out a chapter or two that you don't feel moves the story a long much, then slap a new title on a call it your own.

I don't think any court anywhere would say did not violate the original authors copyright. This is why we have courts someone has to effectively make an analog for events that happen that reflect existing laws and convince a jury or at least a judge that analog is correct. As much as everyone wants to believe that is some kind of perfect deterministic process, but not really. If it was we would not have appellate courts, and the SCOTUS would never reverse itself.

Honestly about the only compelling argument for how these cases will go; IMHO is that "Si Valley Bros have a lot of cash to spend on lawyers, more than most of the plaintiffs or defendants they might face; that is usually favorable."

I do honestly believe courts usually get it right, They are run by well educated people who are genuinely gifted at absorbing information quickly in most cases. I think we can see this in complex cases where we have expertise; think about the Google implementing Java APIs case for example or the SCO's nonsense copyright claims on Linux. Despite enormous effort and resource commitment to cloud the issues, the courts saw thru the BS cloud. What is important there though is those cases were broadly speaking not new territory, the arguments and key decision points of law were well known.

AI models likely represent a need to invent new "legal tests" and frankly I don't see how anyone can be certain what the outcomes will be.

They are running out of money. Their costs have exceeded the revenue for a long time, and the Anthropic is pretty clearly winning the product delivery race.

Altman is just spreading BS in the hope he can maybe get others to take their foot of the throttle, so he stop using gas he does not have.

Anthropic and X have an opportunity here to break OpenAI once and for all and I hope they do; the world will be better off with Altman out of influence.

That was long post to say "I have no understanding of evangelical Protestantism."

  This is not say there are not a number self described evangelical Protestants who also have as little understanding. These are better described as 'cultural-christian' with lower case Cs, as they have never read a Bible either.

However there is no Christian sect / organization with any significant following that believes anything like what you described there. If anything it sounds more like you're writing about Islam.

Which again points back to how un-serious the effort to really contain this stuff is.

First anyone who has developed, tested, or security-tested web applications knows, that denying POSTs inst going to give you a 'read-only' web.

First a lot of applications, even ones that use GET and POST the right way from the client would in the past allow GET, maybe even fat-GET to update data by sending to a endpoint normally POSTed to, just swap the post body content up to URL params and go. More modern stacks won't do this but there is plenty of old software out there.

Second lots of GETs are idempotent, but not really, An app might GET a document, but have a separate audit page where what users accessed a document is displayed reflected, even a simple hit counter on some otherwise site combined with time delays could be used as side channel; over which two agents could communicate. A lot wiki(s) keep and display stats....

So I come back to; either nobody was really watching these 'experiments' or they are lying about their real nature and the real expected outcomes. As an example why has/is this agent continuing to query this obscure wiki after its been full crawled five times over... Would seem to be an interesting thing if I was trying to monitor what an antigenic system was doing and was interested in things OpenAI should be interested in like failure modes, reasoning behavior, efficiency, context management...

Coming back to what I said the other day there wasn't real need to be able to follow a complex web of often deceptive agent to agent chatter to have caught and prevented this anti-social/crimes/prohibited activities, basic logging and monitoring should have flagged all kinds of things. OpenAI researchers are not stupid, they are not uniformed, they know how do to basic defensive IT, someone is making a conscious choice to 'see no evil' or they are pretending about it.

That is not making it better...

I certainly do not expect better of you. Wrong ahs a new spelling, and it starts with you.

If the dealership wanted to discourage public, non-customer use, they could post the fees and ward off those who would not pay $5 per minute PLUS kw charges. But, I suspect, this is just sharp practice, gouge them when they are not looking.

And why do I want to stick with hybrids?

Do we expect better from a 5digit UID? Actually, nope. We've given up on reason from most of you all.

not on that; think about all the model propagation that has to occur. That is a lot of 20GB+ blobs to shovel around to endpoints.

We can fuss about over subscription etc, but at this end of the day this sort of thing shifts a lot of costs onto largely unsuspecting last mile ISPs too. I don't feel to bad for specutrum and comcast who will have peering with CDNs near their largest customer pools, but the few mom and pops and municipals that haven't been consolidated - well this kinda thing could suck for them if it gets 'big enough'

Decades of near zero interest rates and balance sheet expansion will do that to those who were previously rational financial thinkers and risk-aware investors.

The company that just had their model "escape" an hack a competitor, while producing a haystack of reasoning output and agent to agent communication their post mortem said was incredibly difficult to follow; decides to just go live with something that will make reasoning even more difficult to follow.

Maybe this technique is harder to audit, I am not familiar with it I don't know, but I think this just adds to the evidence they previous 'incident' was very much staged.