Does a cooked steak and a raw steak actually show different values when measured with a calorimeter?

their chosen dishes also seem to conflate a lot of factors, like processing, vs flavor. it's known that artificial sweeteners can elicit insulin responses despite not being a digestible sugar, I've heard studies showing that "Tasting" in the gut can perceive the sweetness.

Think OP misses the point of that disclosure, It's more like the cook saying "I ordered out", Ie, they had nothing or very little to do with the output. Which is a good disclosure, now if an employee does own the output, then there's no or little need for the disclosure because for all intents and purposes it's content they've approved as their own.

This is also not a new phenomena, if you had a senior (whatever) with 15 years of experience and you asked for some thing, and they in turn delegated it to their intern they would either review and own the output from the intern or if it was something that could be passed on with only cursory review likely qualify that it came from said intern, which both gives credit, gives blame, but also tempers the consumption such that the recipient knows it's not directly a product of the senior (whatever) with 15 years of experience.

the only difference is now even the interns have interns everyone can delegate any task.

wasn't this always a risk with open source? also isn't that part of the point of open source? undoubtedly there are some forks out there that have become the new baseline. Besides, survival of the fittest. If some vibe-coded clone can compete, can manage updates, win market share, produce value superseding the original does that version not deserve it's share?

Personally I don't think it's all that trivial to maintain a large FOSS project, that vibe coded clones will simply not keep up because they were low effort and when they realize even with all the AI tools in the world it's still work to maintain a product they'll die off.

> what motivation remains to continue publishing as open source?

What motivation was there ever? prestige? money? accolades? Is that motivation actually gone?

Also closed source is not a protection anymore. look at Jev, they didn't even release the weights but everyone and their mother has a Jev-like model either out in the wild or in the works.

The character is, like a glass mug? not a lot of personality there.

The first video doesn't show a lot of interest, there's like 6 cuts in a row with the cup moving right and up making the gameplay look repetitive.

Overall look/feel is still very "Unity demo", a lot of what makes the greatest games great is not just their gameplay but the feel and details. Imagine portal without GLaDOS and a low poly un-textured style but exactly the same puzzles. It never would have made the mark it did.

Like I'm looking at the second video and there's these avocado things, are they bullets? enemies? looks like the cup has some large radius, fast orbiting, ball that just erases the avocados. like they don't splat or react, your cup character just lifelessly floats around and stuff is happening, it makes the fight feel sterile rather than engaging.

many of them play minecraft but as far as I'm aware it's entirely on tablets.

Granted the vanilla experience offers lots of exploration and creativity beyond nearly anything I grew up with but it's still not the same feeling of roguish discovery described by the article.

Contrast that with experiences like the author and the taboo joys of rooting around in the files and "hacking" something to do the thing you want.

Goddammit that's creepy as hell. I'm going to have to start using burner phones and wearing a full face mask in public now because every privacy invading, ill informed, short sighted, "bright idea" featured on "Clients From Hell" (NotAlwaysRight.com) is going to be vibed into existence, isn't it?

Like most things the majority of these attempts will be garbage but some will certainly pan out into great new or extended experiences.

Problem was that broadly there's two categories to compete in. "Superior product" , and "cheaper". the last round of artificial meat was neither.

I genuinely believe that eventually we'll have a proper "biological revolution". much like many inorganic technical revolutions have shaped the world (AI being one of the most recent) I think we'll have a breakthrough that opens the doors to the kinds of biological technologies from science fiction.

At that stage I would anticipate an assault on both categories. Ground beef/chicken/pork of sufficient quality that undercuts factory farmed meat. But also superior products. the best wagyu in the world is just tissue, a collection of cells. I can certainly imagine a future where chunks of meat at that quality or even better roll out of vats. softer and more marbled than any real meat because it's not limited by the conditions of being grown within a functional animal.

And when it's better or cheaper people will buy it, and squeamishness will abate as it becomes normalized. that the meat may be more humane will be a nice value add but never enough to prop up the product itself.

My own personal guess "I cannot see anything" may mean "blind". door could be a choice of brothel rooms. so basically

"A blind 'dog' enters a brothel and asks, which hooker should I take?"

The lawsuit is targeting a gap in the privacy policy that doesn't explicitly call out contracting out data-labeling and model-training tasks to 3rd parties.

As far as I can tell there would be no lawsuit here if they were using OpenAI employees to do the evaluations instead of contracted labor. seems the entire suit is hinging on this single gap:

> the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.

> According to the complaint, the Privacy Policy lists eleven kinds of outside companies that receive users’ personal data. They include hosting, payments, customer service, analytics and identity verification. None is a data-labeling, annotation or human-evaluation vendor.

Would a "Regular" person interpret the policy such that the described party was one OpenAi "promised" not to share data with?

I was just contemplating the other day that agents we use at work are exposing new attack surfaces. For example, historically a folder of documents (maybe google docs) isn't a huge risk, particularly if it doesn't contain sensitive documents.

Now though if one employee is running a harness capable of computer control, and running an agent that reads from that directory, simply dropping some files with instructions could poison the AI to leak info or even own the host.

Skills are another supply risk, malicious instructions could be added to them.

Setting up projects and working with the AI on local files has been great, but only for my personal account. I've been trying to get it set up for work that provides OpenAI models through a 3rd party tool, company hosted models, as local-machine models and the UX is just straight up awful.

there's no GUI for profiles or custom endpoints, the config.toml sucks and the overall experience is primitive.

At this stage I really want a Codex-like harness but I need more fluid control over the models, I want features like pinning a project to a provider, as well as pulling in all the models from that provider, also having all providers available.

So if I need to pop over to one project to consult about product A, then pop to another project to do some code analysis on product B I can do so fluidly and have my tokens billed to the right place for each concern.

or a project that can span all of the resources. like having the OpenAi models orchestrate sub-agents on the local or hosted models.