I strongly suspect that it is really hard to get these models to converge though so I have no idea what your team could've theoretically made, but it certainly would've been well behind SOTA.

My point is if they are changing core elements of the architecture you would have no idea because they wouldn't be telling anyone about it. So thinking you know how Opus 4.6 works just isn't realistic until development slows down and more information comes out about them.

> I have worked in a startup wherein we heavily finetuned Deepseek, among other smaller models, running on our own hardware.

Are you serious with this? I could go make a lora in a few hours with a gui if I wanted to. That doesn't make me qualified to talk about top secret frontier ai model architecture.

Now you have moved on to the guy who painted his honda, swapped out some new rims, and put some lights under it. That person is not an automotive engineer.

Its even more ridiculous than me pretending I understand how a rocket ship works because I know there is fuel in a tank and it gets lit on fire somehow and aimed with some fins on the rocket...

LLMs are certainly capable of this.

I just don't understand people working on improving ai. It just isn't worth the risk.

There is really nothing we can do to satisfy these people except create some kind of structure they demand which will somehow be made to heavily lean in their favor. That is what will satisfy them. Nothing else will.

That is beyond ridiculous.

However, that is not something that can be reversed meaningfully in less than a decade. So for now, I would play the long game like Germany while working to get the EU to build up a military force large enough to significantly reduce our dependence on the US.

If I ask if a drug has a specific side effect and the answer is no it should say no. Not try to find a way to say yes that isn't really backed by evidence.

People don't realize that when they ask a leading question that is really specific in a way where no one has a real answer then the AI will try to find a way to agree, and this is going to destroy people's lives. Honestly it already has.

Almost all games these days are basically like a work in progress, so if you pirate them then the game doesn't stay up to date.

Pirating games is just really inconvenient compared to tv/movies/music.

Also you aren't agreeing to pay to renew the contract. It isn't a rent payment in a structured contract. You can cancel at any time.

So if they stopped letting you watch their new content because you had an old no ads membership would that be ok?

We just shouldn't let people buy profitable companies because they think they can make a return by destroying the business and then bleeding out a small profit once the company had been gutted. It isn't good for the economy, the employees, or really anyone except the plunderers.

I don't know that it should be legal to buy a company and then pay for it by loading up the company with debt obligations. It seems like a form of value destruction in order to enrich a bunch of vultures.

Fundamentally it is basically saying maybe we could buy this company and then plunder it with some % chance that it will still stay afloat and keep generating profit after they gut the company to try to service a debt that should not be attached to the company at all and provided no value to anyone but the vultures.

No one really associates human rights with Microsoft's reputation. That is the domain of Palantir, Meta, etc.