There are obvious reasons why it's expedient to grant the same rights to a collective organization as to its constituents. If you're getting confused by the abstraction, you're welcome to pretend that the board of Facebook (which is comprised of humans) are exercising their individual rights to free speech.
I'm not the one being confused here, though it's fun to see you're already resorting to ad hominem. It reveals a lack of actual arguments, as does your appeal to obviousness.
But yes, I'd like to see the board of Facebook and the boards of many other companies being held liable for the actions of those companies. But for some reason, it's only ever "expedient" to grant companies the rights rightfully belonging to people, and never "expedient" to impose the same sorts of liabilities on them as on people. (Not that a non-physical entity such as a company could ever practically face the same penalties as a physical person anyway, which is another ("obvious" in your parlance) reason not to grant them those rights.)
If I was interested in going down the ad-hominem route I'd claim that you simply see the status quo as "obvious" because you lack the power of imagination to consider a more sensible alternative.
In fact, I think your argument is so backwards it actually supports my case. Why do I need to "imagine" that the owners of the company are using their rights to free speech as individuals (which is obviously not what is actually happening)? Why can't they just actually use those individual rights?
You don't like a trawling boat emptying out the lake in your village? Just imagine that the boat's captain is using a fishing rod to do the same, that's clearly a comparable situation!
This ban also applies to on-prem hosting of Deepseek, and to finetunes/post-trains of Deepseek models that are provided by US-based inference providers. It's not a given that the Chinese would be able to access any of that.
It’s also not a certainty that they wouldn’t be able to access it. Verification of everything would be prohibitively expensive, it’s far cheaper to have US-based LLM companies which are compliant to whatever standard already be used, even if their tokens are more expensive.
Microsoft is banking on the fact that nobody looks for jobs in the paper. The point is to use the lack of response be able to write on paperwork that they've proven that no qualified jobseekers exist in the US. They are aware that advertising in the newspaper is not an effective way to fill a position; the goal is to lie about how much they tried.
Please use more than one brain cell in order to consider the intent behind those guidelines, and whether what Microsoft (and similar companies) is doing is actually within the bounds of what voters and the representatives who wrote the relevant laws wanted. Do you really think the purpose of making companies advertise the job opening in a newspaper was just to give companies a bunch of busywork? or might there have actually been an intent behind it? Are you capable of ascertaining what that intent is? (note: this question has a right answer that all people arguing in good faith are capable of stating)
For the record, under current US law, it is not illegal to have a sentence in your locally-stored notes on your phone outlining a plan to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act. The police in that instance could inform the intended victim, surveil you, etc, but they would not be able to successfully charge you with attempted murder. It's not illegal to be considering committing a crime, even if you have a tendency to write down your thoughts.
The law in this particular case, which seems to be intended for threats that you actually send to someone, is being interpreted broadly to apply to any "threat" that you transmit to a server. So in your hypothetical, the legality would depend on whether your notes are backed up to icloud or not.
This is true for the general criminal conspiracy law, but be aware that an “overt act” doesn’t have to be an illegal act, just some action in furtherance of that crime. That can be purchasing a weapon, or scouting out a location. There may also be other laws in play depending on the specifics
Just having saulpw's physical address is already furtherance of that possible crime.
The commenters here are cute little HNers who think they have found a loophole in the law. They are not the first ones innover their head.
Spoiler: the law is written in words, and those words aren't strictly executed like in a computer program, they are interpreted by actual humans who can see what you are trying to do and will stamp it out.
Yup. HNers (and so many normies) believe that there are well defined rules they can follow and be safe. Spoiler, there is one law in the real world and that is might makes right, and you have no might, so therefore you will never be right. China for its many flaws at least is honest about this.
You're absolutely right, at least according to my own quick check on Gemini. I find this state of affairs amazing.
In my country, no "overt act" is required, but both here and in the US a "conspiracy to commit" charge requires an agreement with a second party. This is indeed consistent with a very broad interpretation of "no thought crimes".
It's a reach to even say that's a function of government. It's definitely not a primary function. Outside of a few relatively brief failed experiments, it's not historically something that government does at all.
In what way would checks and balances do that at all? The only branch that has any sort of leeway to pass unpopular policies is the Supreme Court, and setting budgetary constraints is far outside their purview.
In a world where the president wasn’t politically associated with Congress (the US system It’s different from most in that the executive is not elected from the legislature), the President could theoretically demand Congress send them a balanced budget to sign, otherwise they would be responsible for the cuts.
Unfortunately the U.S. constitution was written with the, in hindsight, naive assumption that political parties could be avoided.
This just led to a system that has political parties but doesn’t really acknowledge their existence and therefore makes it difficult to regulate their behavior.
I don't see why I would be interested in this model, considering the price difference. They advertise that it's the same as Kimi K3 in half the tokens. But the pricing is double the pricing of K3. So why do I care if it uses fewer tokens, if I'm paying double per token?
From reading the blog post, it is essentially exactly the same as the car example. It delivers the same performance on tasks, but using 40% fewer tokens. This is the same as a car getting you to the same destination but wasting less energy on excess heat, wind resistance, or whatever else affects fuel economy (I am not an expert, obviously). I am paying for an LLM to complete tasks for me, not for the intermediate tokens.
I'm with you, I wrote prior comment under the assumption that they were priced differently (from GP claim as such), but they are priced the same (on Fireworks)
Will be taking Ember-1 for a spin on Monday and hopefully enjoy those better MPGs
K3 TOS says they must sell no lower than what Moonshot charges. If you have a provider selling for less than $15/mtok, they are violating TOS from Moonshot.
Check out Neuralwatt. They are ZDR and great energy based K3 pricing. They also have a K3-fast which is basically no reasoning (in addition to regular K3).
industry standard is price-per-1M tokens, don't do something different, even Google caved and moved from their char based pricing to tokens (the fundamental unit of computation in ai)
GPUs are rented in $/h, like every other piece of hardware in cloud
reply