The US is many things, but it’s still way more aligned with European, Canadian, Australian etc goals than China ever will be.

"If your app uses model types other than neural networks, such as decision trees or tabular feature engineering, see Core ML."

Will it be available to developers in the EU though?

In case it is unclear from my tone, I am genuinely curious.

This is monopoly 101. That’s why the US broke up Standard Oil.

Now, I'm not saying every place can be like that, I'm just trying to explain why at this particular university, the honor code is a reasonable policy that may work perfectly well on policing AI in exams. You can't copy that to other institutions, but it answers how they do it here.

I imagine this applies here, too, if they want to enforce it strictly.

https://docs.jax.dev/en/latest/notebooks/Common_Gotchas_in_J...

Might want to mail the pope; maybe there’s some cross-advertising opportunity there. Their target audience is a bit different but they have enormous reach!

There is no good solution to this. Only less bad. It annoys me a bit that many comments on HN imply that open-sourcing everything right away is the answer to everything. To be clear, I'm not annoyed at your comment specifically, it's more an overall sentiment that I perceive here that I feel is very complacent. We've already seen how OSS maintainers get overwhelmed by AI vulnerability reports; I feel it's a responsible thing to gatekeep this for as long as possible (which really is only a few months, at most - other models catch up fast), and try to work with important maintainers directly to help fix the most critical stuff and onboard them to a new world of the AI-assisted cat-and-mouse security game.

This is just damage control. The damage, i.e. the attack capabilities opened up by this, is pretty brutal, and likely requires a substantial shift in mindset from OSS maintainers. This approach gives a few months of transition time. Who decides who is an important maintainer and who isn't? Again, super grey area; there's no time to decide on a proper process given how fast other models will catch up, so realistically you can just do a bit of a best effort here and try to not botch it up entirely. Anthropic went with the Linux foundation here. It's a reasonable choice. Not a perfect one, but you gotta start somewhere.

Always remember: a defender must succeed every time , an attacker only once.

This! I love OSS but this argument seems to get overlooked in most of the comments here.

A lot of consumer spending comes from motivation. Purchase intents come in burts, an "alright I'm gonna commit, I'm gonna do this" moment. As a consumer app developer, you really need to understand that. Some of your users might use your annual sub for five years, some only for one, some for two. If your average lifetime is 2.5 years, a lifetime price that's 3x the sub price gives you more revenue - and revenue upfront - than a sub. Subs are fantastic because they give you predictable recurring revenue, which is worth a lot in the long run (which is why Wikipedia prefers monthly donations instead of larger one-time sums, for example), but if you're getting started, cash flow is everything.

Consider how much software and goods you bought that you thought you were gonna use but then never touched. The $1000 music software bundle from Native Instruments you bought because you thought it would finally bring you to make music? That guitar you bought because you really thought you'd play it? The home gym equipment so you'd finally do some sports? These purchases came from a commitment "I'm gonna do it", and statistically speaking, most people don't follow through with this commitment. A monthly payment for these things would've been much, much cheaper for them. "Oh, but if I own it I can always pick it up again", you say? Who's stopping you from resubscribing if you want to? It's purely emotional.

There are tons of books on purchase psychology; this applies all the way to owning vs renting a flat.

The mistake many developers make is not factoring in how highly people value perceived security of one-time purchases. Offer a lifetime option, and price it accordingly. It's much easier to upsell people while they already have a purchase intent than to resell them your app every year when the new subscription bill comes in. Even if, statistically speaking, it would be much cheaper for most of your users to choose the annual subscription, you will end up with happier users if you offer an expensive lifetime option, and you will end up with more cash in your company. Everyone wins.

Consumer purchase behavior is highly impulsive and irrational. Businesses are very rational and like subs, but for many people, subscription fatigue is a real thing. Make the lifetime option 3-10x the annual rate; done. People will buy it. In my app I set it at 3x (but my annual sub is quite high; 6/mo, 30/y or 100 lifetime) but other apps, like Halide, have 12/y or 80 lifetime last I checked.

You get guaranteed revenue, and you get it upfront - better for cashflow. And you can always tell customers “if you don’t like subs buy the lifetime option”.

"[Yeah, if I'm just gonna be down-voted to oblivion regardless of my participation in the comments, good luck with your 'meaningful discussion'}"

making it impossible for others to read their original comments. If this now becomes a trend I feel like there may be a need to change the rules around editing.