I think those are two different orders: one with a gag order and one without.

In cases without gag orders, Google has pushed back or requested users fight the subpoena.

In this instance, Google got a gag order while Meta doesn't appear to have gotten one. I'm not sure how gag orders like this can be legal. I'm sure there's like Nat Sec defenses but it sure seems dangerous to say the target cannot be notified of such requests.

I think because here there's no single correct answer that the model is allowed to be fuzzier. You still mix in real training data and maybe more physics based simulation of course but it does seem acceptable that you synthesize extremely tail evaluations since there isn't really a "better" way by definition and you can evaluate the end driving behavior after training.

You can also probably still use it for some kinds of evaluation as well since you can detect if two point clouds intersect presumably.

In much a similar way that LLMs are not perfect at translation but are widely used anyway for NMT.

Would it actually be a good idea to operate a car near an active tornado?

It’s autonomous!

Kinda yeah, they tend to always travel northeast

The tornado?

ML models doesn't have fight or flight, so we'll have to show them tornado and teach to run away.

Maybe this is why execs love LLMs a little too much? It's probably not unconnected at the very least.

Are LLMs slowly evolving to be more appealing to narcissistic personalities?

Given the dynamics here that could be the main selection pressure on them.

I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south.

I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_ which is the a ridiculous thing to hear from a leader of a country.

Iceland based data centers are able to cut their energy usage for cooling by 24-31% compared to US/UK equivalent due to the climate [0].

[0]: https://eandt.theiet.org/2022/12/12/iceland-coolest-location...

> I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south.

It is increasingly becoming so. And some designs work well. I only read a post about the internet archive's smart use of the server heat a couple days ago, I can't find it back now. And indeed, good point. Alaska would be great for that too.

And the US is kinda an exception, the rest of the world is watching emissions but the US is trying to screw the world up for everyone else. Including themselves but Trump followers seem to view all the disasters as an 'act of god'. I remember those poor school kids in the flooding in texas last year and there being more 'thoughts and prayers' than actual help or prevention.

I know Ireland is popular for datacenters in part because of the climate there (in another big part all the tax breaks but ok).

And yes you can cool them with renewable energy. Most datacenters are. But it also means that renewable energy can't be used for something else.

>I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_

Does he actually know the difference between "mine" and "the US'" though? I was under the assumption that since the US is his, anything important for him is also important for the US, and vice versa.

Wasn't the original ARPANET entirely owned and controlled by the US government? I think it might've been resilient against attacks from people who didn't own the network but I would also be surprised to learn the US government couldn't shut it down if it wanted.

Not to be too pedantic, but I think you mean Grok with a k. Groq with a q is a separate AI hardware company.

Thanks, changed that.

It's the frictionless aspect of it. It requires basically no user effort to do some serious harassment. I would say there's some spectrum of effort that impacts who is liable along with a cost/benefit analysis of some safe guards. If users were required to give paragraph long jailbreaks to achieve this and xAI had implemented ML filters, then I think there could be a more reasonable case that xAI wasn't being completely negligent here. Instead, it looks like almost no effort was put into restricting Grok from doing something ridiculous. The cost here is restricting AI image generation which isn't necessarily that much of a burden on society.

It is difficult to put similar safeguards into Photoshop and the difficulty of doing the same in Photoshop is much higher.

i think you have a point but consider this hypothetical situation.

you are in 1500's before the printing press was invented. surely the printing press can also reduce the friction to distribute unethical stuff like CP.

what is the appropriate thing to do here to ensure justice? penalise the authors? penalise the distributors? penalise the factory? penalise the technology itself?

Photocopiers are mandated by law to refuse copying currency. Would you say that's a restriction of your free speech or too burdensome on the technology itself?

I wonder what the terms of this new deal are. Goldman Sachs had accepted absolutely ridiculous terms like forgoing fees because they were apparently desperate for consumer business. Chase has an existing consumer business so I can't imagine they would accept the same terms but I wonder what this would mean for the card benefits.

While there isn't a way to differentiate between scraping for training data and content accessed in response to a user request, I think you can block Googlebot-extended to block training access.