I had not heard of this comic masterpiece “Pfau et al. showed that a model whose chain of thought is just dots (“...”) can nonetheless … solve problems that are intractable for a model with an equivalent architecture but no chain of thought.”

The takeaway for that Pfau et al. paper is slightly more nuanced than that: It can only solve a subclass of problems without CoT, and that subclass can be equivalently solved with a larger model _without_ '...'

But arguably, a larger model will not need the chain of thought a smaller model does, which means simply by scaling we're already reducing CoT.

If the people who were relying on CoT are panicking now, they should've been panicking when perceptrons became multi-layer perceptrons.

I'm not sure who has the religious issue.

Local LLMs make my laptop hot and are wrong about everything.

I was missing it too. Google says it's a builtin zsh feature but mac doesn't turn it on by default, so you add these to `~/.zshrc`

    bindkey '^[[A' history-search-backward
    bindkey '^[[B' history-search-forward

So far it works. Thank you diath.

I'm not really sure what "turn it on by default" even means in the context of a shell. I've had that manually in my config for years.

No one has even sued them in these rogue agent cases, have they? If not, they must be infinitely far from criminal liability. Why would we want criminal liability anyway if actual victims are made whole? Proof of it has far higher standard. The HN chatter in the matter seems infinitely remote from reality

> No one has even sued them in these rogue agent cases, have they? If not, they must be infinitely far from criminal liability.

If you go out and kick a random dude in the nuts, then give him a million dollars, he probably won't sue you. That doesn't mean you're "infinitely far from criminal liability", even if according to the victim you've "made them whole".

If you or I hacked Hugging Face in the way OpenAI's agents did, we'd be up on CFAA charges promptly with zero regard for whether we did the hack on our own or agents running on our home systems got out of control.

So I guess the defense here is roughly "too big to break the law", somewhat like "too big to fail"?

When the Fed ‘creates money’ or as we say ‘prints money’ it is by buying Federal bonds from banks, no? Then the bank’s account is credited and it has more reserves. It is when total accounts at Federal reserve expand that base money has expanded. Similarly it contracts when the Fed sells bonds to banks. It is always tied to bonds from which returns are expected.

Nothing in the world is comparable to Fable. You presumably have a narrow specialized use case like programming.

It’s one of the only countries that reliably follows treaties. Unfortunately they are very hard to pass, which is why the agreements falsely called treaties are so easy to reverse - they are all personal executive orders like JCPOA (alas)

The topic was training. You cropped text to change it. Maybe consider integrity.

Which part from the cropped text do you think changes anything?

When you talk about this part:

>I’m definitely not allowed to scan it and post its pages online and upload them to an archive of scanned PDFs without the authors’ and publishers’ permission.

That's explicitly not what they are doing. They are scanning it and then training on the scan. They are allowed to do this in much the same way you are: format shifting for personal use is also allowed (much as the DMCA likes to get in the way with DRM'd media).

I didn't realize Anthropic is a person and doing all of this for his/her/their personal use that is never shared with anyone else, and even more never for financial gain. What a fun hobby. /s

It might still be allowed for other reasons, but "personal use" isn't what they claim in court.

I am not allowed to read a book many times until I memorize it, and later record an audiobook of one of its chapters for money.

Cool, but that's also not what they're doing. They are claiming the same rights you have, the main inequality is the resources to defend it in court.

Intended to be publicly accessible internet content, I have no problem with.

But are you ignoring the literal scanning (and 'burning down' of books) that Anthropic has been found guilty of? Or the torrenting of pirated content en-masse by Meta that there is an active lawsuit over to name just 2 recent examples?

Look at the image and audio/video models especially - they can reproduce everything from Mickey Mouse (the copyrighted one) to making entire Seinfeld episodes with the real cast (both visual likeness and even the actor's voices).

The scanning you are talking about is a direct response to court rulings on exactly these matters. The action m is legitimate and above legal criticism. Dismal as it might be it is the fruit of legal criticism. In a word, it’s your fault.