As long as it’s service telemetry, not used for model training, not inspected by humans, not analyzed except for service purposes… I don’t see the regulatory issue.

Are there any regulations covering what telemetry your service providers can keep? I’m skeptical, but even if so it would be trivial for Anthropic to exempt certain larger customers while still keeping the policy published as universal.

Or Fable’s arch is different enough the allocated clusters of compute targeting a date, and here we are, ready or not.

Or…

The DMA doesn’t have the objective measures. It’s all discretion, all subjective, all post hoc.

Which, cool, some people like the idea that police target those people and need flexibility to make life harder for undesirables in ways they would never do to high status people. I don’t personally like that, and I don’t think tech regulation should work that way.

Are you suggesting that PCC specifically is sending things in plaintext, or that the security promises in the server and arch are false, or that a compromised CA means… IDK what?

I’m with you on the big principles, but are you implying more specific attack vectors or just kind of maybe everything could be compromised somehow?

Like any good security paper, it doesn’t assert immunity to particular parties. Instead, covers things like how PCC attests that the running software image is identical to the publicly-available, forensically-studied one.

Fear is real for sure, but don’t let fear be an excuse to lose rigor in thinking.

Which it could be, but given both breadth of claim and Apple’s strong incentives not to be caught lying about something so massive, I’d want something more than vibes to take the idea seriously.

I’m more of a rule of law person myself. If there’s a law that must not be broken, and breaking it results in penalties, it seems insane to me to not specify it in advance.

Sure, big tech is largely evil. Arrest ‘em, find them, IDGAF.

But pretending that DMA and related regulations provide enough information to ensure compliance is willfully ignorant. The regulations are designed to allow selective enforcemen.

I’ve read all of it, multiple times, and been grilled by EU regulators (vicariously, via corporate lawyers).

It still boils down to general guidelines that it’s impossible to know if you’re violating before the fact, and they will not even approve/reject proposals in advance. It’s basically “go read the act yourself, and ship what you think is compliant, and you’ll know whether we interpret the words the same way by whether or not we fine you.”

Good times.

At some point this is just a debate about vertical integration. Apple can deliver better experiences with it, but of course it limits user choice.

Many people want fully modular, open systems, which is lowest common denominator.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I am so skeptical of regulators deciding what can be integrated or not. If modularity is better for consumers, why don’t they prefer modular systems?

At the very least I think there should be a very clear tradeoff; right now the EU seems to think they can regulate their way to all of the benefits of vertical integration while outlawing vertical integration. I don’t see how anyone could look at that with a straight face.

There’s composition, where music is written. A drum track may be a boring repetitive loop quantized to 4/4 beat positions, or it may have fills or polyrhythm or free time or who knows what.

There’s performance, which may be a sequencer just outputting notes at the right time or may be a human drummer of varying skill, imparting sloppiness or brilliant micro timing.

There’s recording, which today is virtually always digital, but which can theoretically be analogue tape or other exotic forms.

There’s storage medium, where we get vinyl or FLAC or MP3.

And there’s playback, where your choice of system components matters.

You can digitally record, mix, and master a bunch of drunk teenagers who don’t know how to play, and I promise it will be gloriously analog. And you can take music that was composed on an sequencer with pure quantization and no human feel at all, record/master/mix digitally, and store it on vinyl and play it in a good system and the sound will have analog warmth even while the composition and performance do not.

There’s more artistry in music today than there ever has been. More music is release every single day than was released in any entire year before 2000.

You just have to find the good stuff. If you’re hearing boring corporate crap, that reflects a need to improve discovery skill to match this new world.

Not saying that is the situation, I don’t know. But if “one error is too many” is your point of view… do you think the humans in these orgs are 100% perfect 100% of the time?

And of course they could bill per-token, same way cable PPV worked (the bits were already in your house). But the cost structure of weights in silicon means that competitors would be encouraged to compete on this per-token cost, as their marginal cost would be zero.

I don’t see that being a durable business model, but I guess the counter argument is it’s also similar to game consoles, where initial hardware is subsidized and the business model assumes ongoing payment for bits.

Everything we’re using now is the equivalent of building a GPU on an FPGA: the hardware is general purpose at one abstraction level, and that comes with inefficiency at the next layer up. Collapse the levels, gain efficiency at the cost of generality.