I can copy and redistribute macOS binaries, and I can write programs/extensions that modify macOS.
These vague terms show that legislators are incapable of regulating software effectively; but they do create an enduring legal franchise to deal with their confusion.
You cannot. The apple license has multiple restrictions on that prevent you from copying, modifying and redistribution, for example:
> No Reverse Engineering. You may not, and you agree not to or enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License or by the Usage Rules if they are applicable to you), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components that may be included with the Apple Software).
> large capital investors [...] will be very highly motivated not to let their investment be seized [...] So the labs will not have too much difficulty raising or borrowing enough money to pay the bills
So: sunk costs of large investors mean they'd be willing to pay high interest costs? Thus small investors can rely on this dynamic, shielded by big ones?
Remember, the large investors got large in a near-zero interest rate environment (where exact timing doesn't matter as much), but those days are not coming back. Soon margins will matter most, and while NVDA and Apple have the internal discipline for that, OpenAI et al do not.
The study methods are closer to advocacy than science or policy.
Sure, take any slice of a vast number, and you get a big number.
It's not a "wealth transfer" when everyone gets what they bargained for and can opt in or out.
Most importantly, the transaction value of using credit cards or rewards systems - what the user actually gets - is not enumerated.
Beyond what others have noted (mainly deferred payment), credit cards offer legal transaction protections: my legal liability for fraud is limited (unlike debit or Zelle transfers), and I can challenge any transaction even later, which gives the vendor an incentive to ensure I'm happy even after they have my money. While reputation provides some incentive for repeat customers, the ability to retract a transaction governs even non-repeats. I would submit this alone has improves quality of service for everyone anywhere credit cards are accepted.
Rewards vary by type. Cash-back rewards reflect the fact that interchange fees were set to recapture initial investments, but servicing costs have plummeting (thanks to computing); governance-wise, it's almost impossible for a "representative" political system to extract a large cost from a small number of powerful agents with vested interests to provide a tiny amount of benefit to a very large numbers of other people. But that's a much more extensive governance issue.
So where does the benefit go? To competition between credit providers, initially as cash-back, and then to tying rebates to future purchases within controlled channels. For airline point systems that give free flights or upgrades, it improves retention, but other forms of rewards would seem to verge on tying, where power in one market is extended into another.
Politically-mediated wealth transfers are a political issue. Economically-mediated wealth transfers should raise market-regulation policy issues, in particular whether the law is inducing or protecting them, and then whether they are good or bad. Tallying that requires not just seeing the money flow, but seeing all the value received or cost exported.
Leasing now an option, only $50/month (cheaper than inference subscription?), so even cash-poor can go the amortized-investment route.
I've often felt there is tremendous value locked up in underutilized old computers. It would be interesting to see Apple in 3 years offering compute as a service using lease returns (or more likely, partnering with someone else to operate it (perhaps exclusively in secondary markets like China or India, to address political demands for local siting or jobs). Apple is in the best position to work around or even gap-fix older software/hardware limitations in a controlled environment, and now they can do so without cannibalizing new hardware sales.
I looked at multiple configurations, and mathed it out. With leasing, you pay ~75% of the capital cost (excl. tax) over 3 years, but end up with no asset.
Apple computers tend to have excellent resale value, and Mac Minis/Studios have the least depreciation of them all. I understand the benefits to both taxes and cash flow, but boy is Apple winning big on those lease offers for Studios.
> by far the most accurate criticism of AI companies including Anthropic is that we haven’t yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world. That is totally on us
I don't think it's on them. Proximally, it's not their job to deliver the end-use value; it's their customers' job (if they're doing it, it would be a strong sign of tying). More generally, they operate as a commercial SaaS entity (non-profit or not), and net benefit to the world is not what any company is structured for (even public benefit corporations have mainly indirect effects).
So I think that "criticism" is just a back-handed way of promoting themselves in messianic terms.
IMHO Anthropic, OpenAI et al continue the practices that make people resent companies (US companies): You have to be either connected or nominal (show of diversity) to actually participate in the opportunities or protect yourself from their predations. That's just the nature of knowledge work: you need a ladder of opportunities that start very early to participate, and you'd need to understand subtleties of engagement to see how you're being fleeced as a customer. The divide of rich to poor is not about money but both knowledge and access; it's felt even by long-time experts in the field who are left out or ousted.
> Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare
Eclipse has been thriving since 2002 mostly by virtue of being able to coordinate developers via plugin's and a business-friendly license.
They did need to upgrade early plugins into OSGI, and most of the new plugin designs benefit from copying OSGI, et al. The key is SAT solvers for dependencies and namespace separation, not forcing clients into the same dependency version.
But as you suggest, relying on the community is a moral hazard. In Eclipse there were big players willing to fund key use-cases for their own purposes; elsewhere I've seen sufficient monetization of plugins to offer incentives and stability.
I would add that VSCode plugins follow a different development model. While any OSGI/Eclipse plugin can provide an interface, I believe in VSCode you're limited to the API's they give you (and they make a mess of them, so there's more inconsistencies e.g., in LSP support that anyone can enumerate).
The problem pre-dates LLM's: writing code that "works" but breaks the underlying model. Because it works, it always sounds reasonable and doesn't raise any flags.
Only someone - human or LLM - who holds the model as the standard would see that this working solution breaks the model.
(In theory, the model is to preserve scaling, flexibility or some other systemic feature not immediately invalidated by this working code, but as always the model itself could be bad.)
LLM's are not bad at giving an account of the model; indeed, fighting with the LLM over what the model is can clarify things. But LLM's will happily hold on to a stream of inconsistent statements as their model, so they are not the authority.
I will add: The model is often completely implicit in the code. Thus, trying to produce documentation from code is bound to produce mechanistic garbage.
I see two ways out. Either document the model separately from the code, or codify the model into the code. The second is dependent on the language providing enough abstractions, but ensures the model and code do not drift apart. And I think in an LLM heavy setting, this will pay off.
understanding a different modality of model interaction gave me proper insight into the specific problem. In visual models, even if the model understands the concept of face, or hand, or whatever, it doesn't know how to de-dupe a statement like "count the number of faces" until you give it a countable reference frame, so it can internally, place a box around a face and give that a coordinate, and then it can collect all the coordinates, and suddenly it's counting face in a picture.
The same thing happens in code. Things we're happily shifting from context to context, the model itself isn't doing. When it reads file1 for the main() clause, it will easily read file2's main() clause as the same. It'll internally merge these.
So if you do want to work with these models to achieve complex tasks, you basically do have to go reverse centaur and bend the code base to it's blindness. You can't use the same function names across the code base; each one needs to be dstinguishable; same thing with variables that represent seperate entity relationships.
You do that, and it suddenly because a whole lot smarter.
The irony is that the SQLite developers get a support contract iff someone runs off the path in anger and finds an ancient bug. But perhaps that's part of what make it a quality team: devotion thriving without adverse incentives.
While you might be correct, I wouldn't necessarily assume the "and only if" part of your statement. There might be companies that choose to proactively purchase support contracts. And there are companies that have paid $150K/year for https://sqlite.org/consortium.html access. Which means, among other things, that they get first priority for any needs they have:
> Consortium members have the guaranteed, undivided attention of the SQLite developers for 23 staff-days per year and for as much additional time above and beyond that amount that the core developers have available. There are no arbitrary limits on contact time. The consortium will never be over-subscribed. New SQLite developers will be recruited and trained as necessary to cover the 23 day/year support commitment.
The SQLite home page lists five companies that have paid for consortium access. I can easily imagine that there are more who don't want to pay $150K/year but would pay $1.5k/year, proactively, to get "private, expert email advice from the developers of SQLite" when they need it.
Related: does anyone have a basis for guessing whether the Neural Accelerators found in M5 Pro+ (accessed by Metal 4) will make their way into the M6 base processors?
With an Ethics dept, concerned employees can rest easy knowing someone else is responsible, or if they raise concerns, they have someone to route and advocate their concerns, rather than adding noise to the chain of command. If the dept. ends up ineffective after some years, employees can blame the department, or have renewed hope when personnel turn over. So (slow) turnover is good from this perspective.
I can copy and redistribute macOS binaries, and I can write programs/extensions that modify macOS.
These vague terms show that legislators are incapable of regulating software effectively; but they do create an enduring legal franchise to deal with their confusion.