Also if the robot is ultimately controlled by Musk or Altman?
I do want a robot serviant. But running AI that I control. Here it google says it can "And this profound intelligence can also run locally on-device", that makes it interesting for me.
I might even get one as I like trying new tech if and when, but I have no issue with hiring humans either and humans so far "fail" very differently from machines (as in a lot of software). I find the latter far less predictable and controllable.
I wonder if they ever will be. If the chinese open source models are only 3-6 months behind every major frontier model release, I can't see the business model. GLM-5.2 is supposedly on par to Opus depending on the case. And everybody and their mother can run that model in their datacenter and charge Dollars for tokens.
There is distillation going on where chinese providers give the model lots of outputs. We don't live in a world where chinese providers are not doing this so we can't compare the advantage of this distillation, but there is some advantage to it otherwise they wouldn't do it.
If Anthropic can block distillations somehow (which are fair game imo given that Anthropic et al did the same with the written works of mankind), then they might stop or slow down the chinese from catching up.
Chinese also have like 40% of the AI researchers of the world, plus they have access to a lot of cheap labour for writing training data. I'm sure an hour of training data creation from one of China's 162 million university educated people is much cheaper than an hour of work from one of US's 97 million. Probably still cheaper than someone from the grand area.
China is behind in AI chips/GPUs but they are catching up. One thing where they have a hard dependence on outside is their energy imports: they have to import a lot of stuff from third party countries. The US on the other hand is energy self sufficient.
Stopping distilation is a condradiction to growth: The more active users Anthropic gets, the easier it will be for chinese companies to distile the model. Heck, I can see a paid browser extension being issued that does nothing but send copies of your AI chatbox prompts+results to China - with a "hidden" feature that creates distillation prompts every now and then. Give each 5$ a month for installing the browser extension, and you got an unstoppable distillation botnet.
I think the panic around distillation misses the fact that US labs also benefit heavily from Chinese breakthroughs like Deepseek's work on sparsity, MoE and training architecture
It may be that US labs use Chinese models for distillation but we'd ofc never know because they can host the models themselves
xAI is discounting the first few months of their rental to Anthropic, which will help them seem profitable for a bit longer. We'll need to see if that lasts.
We usually do conferences in cryptography/security, and most of them have page limits: CCS, USENIX, NDSS, S&P, CRYPTO, EUROCRYPT all have page limits (some allow appendices, which reviewers are not obligated to read).
I think it’s a matter of degree. If you share it behind closed doors, with a few friends, it wouldn’t turn any heads (mostly because the target is unaware).
If you share it with the entire class? In the school building itself? It becomes impossible for the target to not be aware.
What if you share it with one person, and that person shares it with one person, and so on, until the whole class sees it? Has no crime been committed?
Blind people would be fine as they wouldn't be wearing the glasses. Being physically unable to see the ads and purposely hiding them, are two different things.
Yes, if you count the emissions for the stuff manufactured in China for (not only) european customers.
If you look at consumption-based emissions[0], China is at 7 t per capita, which is 8 t less than the US, 2 t less than Germany and about par with Denmark, Slovakia, and England.
This is per capita data again, which makes the argument circular. In absolute terms, China emits more than twice as much CO2 as the next producer, and only a small fraction of that is exported.
Per capita data makes sense. CO2 emissions don’t change if we cut giants countries into many smaller ones. If China was 25 different countries you wouldn’t be pointing the finger to them.
Why shouldn’t the highest emitters not be the ones to reduce most?
Because we're not having a moral argument but rather a practical one. The fact is that China emits much more CO2 than other countries, even after you account for exports (ie, CO2 emissions "offshored" from Europe and North America). Moreover: while emissions in the west are falling, the are rising in China and India and the developing world, as they must, because they track rising standards of living.
I don't understand the "25 smaller Chinas" argument. China sets statewide emissions policies. That's a reason we pay attention to country borders here, rather than considering an undifferentiated mass of humanity as a map scatterplot.
Ultimately, the reason to point out the gap between China and Europe or North America is that if you concentrate climate mitigation strategies on the west, you won't actually do much to solve the crisis. Fair's got nothing to do with it.
Only in the most abstract sense, because the real debate is over prioritization; if you suggest that equal effort be put into both of these projects, reasonable people will argue that you're misallocating effort.
