You can still do aerial photography for universities while accepting that some people might want their non-public property to be blurred. It's not mutually exclusive.
Academics and governments are buying imagery from the same sources Google is. I've actually just straight up used Google maps for high latitude archaeology when a grant for imagery fell through.
I think you missed the context or intentionally misinterpreted my comment. All real property is publicly viewable from overhead. That has nothing to do with private property rights.
That depends on whether you consider the air to be part of the property or not. When aviation was invented it was a widespread legal and philosophical thought that the owner of property owned the air above the property. "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad cœlum et ad inferos" - he who owns the soil has from from Heaven to Hell. So pilots would have to get permission from each property owner they wanted to fly over. From that perspective, a satellite or aircraft flying overhead is trespassing. We didn't go that way. Governments legislated and took seizure of the air as common rights of way, and curtailed private property rights when they did so. It's probably better that way. But there's a certain logic to the old ad cœlum definition.
I was recently adding Windows Support for some open source software on GitHub which is maintained by someone else.
I gave 6.1-Sol all the instructions needed for creating a build, testing it on my machine, setting up an action on GitHub for CD, and it all did all of it very well BUT THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY OPENED A PR ON BEHALF OF ME WITHOUT ME ASKING FOR EXPLICIT PERMISSION??
That was incredibly embarrassing, I instantly converted the PR to a draft PR and added a comment that I would still need some time to verify everything locally. Ended up doing a few more commits to fix stuff. But damn, it opening a PR without my explicit permission was very scary.
It's funny because I am working on repos that only I see and use, and I tell it to open a PR automatically after running all the various checks, and 6.1-sol invariably fails to do so unless I explicitly tell it that it's ok to run the tests (remote ci from local worktree) because it won't "send the contents of the repo to a remote server without explicit permission", and then it also refuses to open a PR until I explicitly bless it. In AGENTS.md it says, verbatim, that both of those things are explicitly permitted, indeed, required, but hey...
This is my experience as well. Sol and Astra are by far the best of the models I use at following the instructions in AGENTS.md, almost to an annoying point. (But I'd rather have that problem than the inverse.)
Basically RLHF sometimes favor "automation", and if it is not rewarded properly it will go over the line. Models are a bit more difficult to teach because their mechanism of "boundary" is quite fragile and different than human's.
Existing enterprise contracts? Data retention contracts (some have zero data retention contracts)? Staying with a single provider because it's easier to have everything in one place?
It's a "problem" of compute, I think. If you query without an account on ChatGPT you will see the model look up less stuff and research less, than when you have a paid account and choose "medium" or "high" in the effort slider.
Which makes sense, because of you have looked into search and crawlers you notice that search is actual quite expensive (which is why e.g. Kagi charges a few bucks for search every month).
It's not strictly compute, because this has noticeably improved in open-weight models too, such as Gemma and Qwen. I suspect they noticed this issue and adjusted their training to be better about it over time.
I built a toy news-summarizing agent with Gemma 4, and it was so frustrating, actually, because of the cut-off date.
The model wasted over half the token budget, each time, on internal debates over the current date.
When generating a World Cup summary, for example, it refused to believe qualification rounds were over and refused to even call the web searching tool to collect the data.
I injected the current datetime at the very beginning of the system prompt, but Gemma refused to believe it!
The m-effer insisted the timestamp was fake and hypothesized it was being evaluated in a synthetic lab test with simulated future dates!
No amount of system prompting could convince it to trust the clock.
That was the most frustrating and bizarre "bug" I ever faced!
(Actually you eat cake and drink coffee on a funeral, but it's still called like that in some parts of Austria.)
reply