Browsers _intentionally_ limit the amount of memory and cpu cycles a tab can consume to make for a nicer human experience.

If you can convince the caller to keep track of that metadata themselves you obviously don’t need to. That can be important.

Something I noticed is that _very often_ the code that is calling malloc(n) is keeping track of n somehow for its own reasons (bounds checking, grow/gap pointers, etc) so merging the value halves stack churn and it’s an easy win.

extern int errno;

Well they don't.

Users want the website to work sooner, and care little about whether a for-loop of elements take 10ms or 20ms if it only happens once.

JS can be AOT compiled if you can wait a few _seconds_ -- which users don't want, so browsers don't bother.

Our attacker however, rightly observes they only have to pay that compilation cost once.

Not if the honest party is doing it in a browser: The same computer can so any POW so much faster in C than any amount jf JS and WASM that it will never ever ever be a contest.

> becoming much more obvious and easy to block, or they have to use massive amounts of compute.

If you believe this, please contact me: I think compute is free[1] and can probably help you out.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30175269

To "write", I mean the precursor to "read".

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

> Are you talking about literature / articles, or software?

All of the above.

> This is new to me, want to stay on top of it.

I am sorry to tell you it is not too new. Google tried this before recently with something called WEI (which you might be able to find on ddg or other search engines): It failed for reasons few people know for sure[1], but the initiative had the same basic bullshit about security, and the same outcomes.

[1]: The story I heard was a couple South-American countries noticed that this would prevent their people from being able to work on software that runs in the Google ecosystem and threatened to block Google en masse. Since then, one of the countries that Google has a lot of offices in invaded one of those South American Countries for conveniently unrelated reasons.

I have tried everything that is available at my local shops (which looks like it came from Temu)

That being said I think there are a few things that make my carplay experience _worse_ than my friends’ android auto experience: for example today I am annoyed by google maps spam me with notifications trying to get me to use googles maps instead of waze which is so fucking stupid since it’s also google and it just makes me more annoyed with google instead of being the sort of thing that would convince me to switch to android. But I have to admit the google maps and waze integration on android is better.

I don’t hate carplay but some things annoy me like I can’t Shazam what I’m listening to in the car because CarPlay pauses the cars audio. I would be willing to try to make it optional until CarPlay works better.

There are a lot of poor people, mostly brown people, who do not have the ability to get one of these licenses.

Some of them are feeding themselves with their ability to write, and Google is literally stealing that food from their mouths.

No, please don't move past this so quick, because I'm not convinced they have the need, and in some markets (like the US) it is a violation of civil rights, to show people different content based on their ethnicity[1] because those people might have a claim that supersedes anything they might have signed or clicked-through.

That Anthropic did something they could obvious be sued for constitutional violations in multiple countries is shocking.

> what else [are] they're harvesting from my machine? PII?

Assume everything, and yet I think this is more insidious than mere exfiltration, and we should go further: The LLM can respond to these magic quote marks directly, which means it can be trained to give people bad/different advice without those markers being so visible to people using debugging tools.

That's so unethical, the laws on this potentially so severe, Anthropic could be facing unlimited damages, from any one example combined with this article, which means either they have a really stupid management team, or were given a promise of legal immunity in some way.

Neither of those things should be what you should want to base your next big idea on.

[1]: For a simple example, showing an ad for (say) mortgage offers and targeting people by race/ethnicity/gender is totally illegal, but it's also illegal if you make a list of targeting criteria that just happen to select for a protected class.

> This claim is baseless... it all boils to question how much of the salt makes a soup a salty one.

No it doesn't. The very existence of the question means it is not clear.

> - if I put 10.000 words into a prompt and got 500 words out of it, is the author LLM, or me?

Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped.

> - if I got 50 lines, and modified each single one, is the author LLM, or me?

Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped, combined possibly with you. You need all authors to agree on the rights.

You would have to not just modify them, but modify them substantially to either change their meaning or criticise them, or do something because just flip a random number of bits in order to get into the running, and a judge might still disagree with you.

> I'm confident I could prove my case against the court

I'm not even sure you understand the stakes, because not just the authors have claim but also the persons (e.g. z.ai in your case) who assembled the model, and you just blew past both of those people like they were nothing.

You're not even in third-place for rights on this work, and you don't even seem to realise that.

I don't know mumps very well, but this seems pretty straightforward if you put the primer next to it, and I am troubled by your (common!) reaction to alien technology...

> Stringly typed with literally no other types? Uh…

like this example here; SQLite made this choice too. Everyone knows about SQLite by now, right?

All types are strings when the user types them in, whether you are talking source code text, or the patient's weight in kilograms. Pretending you can have other types is something the source code of your application (or the language your application is written in) does.

This is something that makes total sense when you are thinking about things the right way (whatever that means), so when something makes you go "uh" try inverting this equation, and ask yourself, in what way (or under what circumstances) would this decision make sense?

That sort of thinking will get you the right ideas to understand everything else in the software world, and make you less avoidant about filling in the gaps in your own abilities.

> It had some neat ideas

Has. Multiuser support is still almost nonexistent in mainstream programming (and just recently starting to actually show up in SQL implementations!). And besides SQL, the most popular language with global variables you've might have heard of is perl. Understanding these ideas is still in the future.

Putting the ideas in the past, and framing them with such harsh judgement -- especially the ideas like this that you don't fully understand yet -- keeps them out of your mind, and denies you access to what these ideas can do for you.

As an example: A lot of people make a "users" table in SQL for the users of their application. Of course most SQL implementations have "users" of their own, and have a robust implementation that is already there, and yet almost nobody uses it and chooses to make their own rather than learn how to use the one SQL gives them.

Now: SQL exfiltrations are only possible because of this, and when you fully understand why that is you'll probably never make another users table again.

> and some absolute nightmare fuel.

but nightmares? Seriously? There was nothing in that example code that I am going to have nightmares about. It seems very well thought out (unlike say, Python's). It's even Y2K compliant. There is even a few ideas in there I'm going to steal for my own parser.

There is good stuff here; don't give up.

Of the two other parties who claim copyright, neither is the submitter; either Facebook (or whoever “made” the model) has it or the persons whose content is in the model has it. Facebook did not assign copyright of the output to the user, and neither did those others.

He didn’t look at the t&c for whatever model he was using and didn’t understand he had no copyright claim over its output?

He doesn’t have any rights to the code; he can’t assign them to the FSF.

> What incentives does this give people?

Hopefully to learn how to code so they can make their own contributions.

The “contributor” doesn’t have the ability to contribute; They do not have copyright over the code so they can’t assign it.

The maintainer should not read it because then they could be tainted and perform accidental copyright infringement in the future.

And yes, some of those links are above 1gbps so that the users can have individual 1gbps links.

I think more likely got something wrong with the units; System.Net.Networkinformation.ping reports in whole seconds (so this is ~400ms) for example. Maybe it is some weird tool or typo.