Does it even matter if it distills other models? ethically no, because the information was originally stolen from us users... it is indirectly harming anthropic if it is happening, but who cares? It is better for everyone except anthropic that anthropic doesn't have a monopoly.
A very cool project, but of course not perfect. I'd rather have 30 megabytes of phrases mapped to the perfect and correct control changes in a home, rather than a heuristic built around 30 megabytes. I tried to "warm the house" (increase the temperature of the thermostat), but the model actually turned the lights to a "warm brightness" - reasoninig being `"'warm the house' -> set_lights to warm brightness. No specific room given, so use default 'living room' as default."`
Thank you fr this. "warm the house" now goes to the thermostat. It's fair that a more deterministic system with just action phrases would be easier to debug/interpret, but I think there is room for both a model that is trained to understand meaning as well as deterministic logic aiding it. To this end, we just started exploring the idea of triggers, and are working towards expanding this even more.
> there’s no such thing as a secure computer system
Where is your source for this? It is entirely possible to make a secure computer system, though it does require effort. The article specifically mentions "up to" 10% and the fines applying to companies leaking data on purpose or through negligence. I doubt the fines will be nearly as high for a company that tries to secure a system (and thus prevents more leaks) rather than a company that does not try to secure a system (assuming that leaks will occur), if the same breach happens.
Computers are deterministic (excluding cases where practically impossible cosmic ray events occur), so while we have the power to ensure system security, we should ensure system security. Heck, even just encrypting consumer information and protecting just the keys to this data would already decrease the effectiveness of many data breaches.
It is not possible to make a secure computer system that is also usable. There is ultimately no way to avoid the tradeoff between convenience and security.
You can make a system "more" secure than other systems, but you cannot make it truly secure.
A restart of the process does not necessarily mean reverting the model state. I don't know why you would even do that, because you'd lose all the progress you made.
this! - the reason Zig defaults to one semantic analysis thread is due to current (to be improved) limitations; some ideas for Zig also will require one compilation unit - the restricted function pointers proposal being a good example: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/23367
The bun team tried to parallelize Zig's semantic analysis a while back - and it DID compile about 4x as fast... YET the builds were no longer deterministic, which is a hard requirement for lots of things. More effort will need to be spent here than naively adding a thread pool. Hopefully Zig's Sema.zig gets faster, but Rust is also super slow at compiling and needs to improve. Oh - one last thing to note, Zig has very fast debug compilation and incremental compilation, it's a real nice thing to work with that you simply can't approach in most other languages right now.
> The bun team tried to parallelize Zig's semantic analysis a while back - and it DID compile about 4x as fast...
I actually collected a build with multi-threading turned on [1]. It helped quite a bit, cutting the Zig object time from 7m49s to 4m05s. But because of the reason you mentioned (and the post was already so long!) I decided not to bring it up.
> Oh - one last thing to note, Zig has very fast debug compilation and incremental compilation, it's a real nice thing to work with that you simply can't approach in most other languages right now.
Yes, in fact I also tested just running bun run build / bun run build:release and captured traces for both! The clean release build took 3m36s for Zig versus 5m50s for Rust [2][3]. Clean debug was closer: 3m07s versus 3m27s [4][5].
I also tried incremental debug builds: adding a comment to output.zig / output.rs took 48.6s / 65.4s to rebuild. Ordinary developer builds certainly gave a different picture from CI.
It's reasonable to believe not, because OpenAI has money and is using it to get what they want. Example: OpenAI is declining the 1 million USD from the navier stokes millennium problem prize, which is essentially a "bribe" because it would now cost one million USD to go with the other side in this controversy.
reply