You are using DeepSeek's services directly? Doesn't that end up sending at least snippets/chunks of code to a server where it is subject to Chinese government data access laws? Even if I was okay with that, my organization would never be. And even if they were, our partners/vendors/customers would not be. I think that's the sticking point for a lot of people.
Yes all of it goes straight to China! All of it is also open source or source available, or will be in the future. The stuff that isn't is trivial enough.
For any work with protected intellectual property, I use other providers, for the contractual guarantees, but I think it would be silly to think that OpenAI or Anthropic are not training on literally all data they get. How could you ever tell if they did? They can just claim the data was mislabelled, or ignore the accusations. If you have serious IP, use only local models.
Have noticed similar things using it for code review. "Issue #3: This variable is defined but never used. It is actually used later in the method though. So this is not a real issue to be concerned about", that sort of thing.
The issue here isnt that an AI wrote the code, its that a human didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. LLM's allow you to rush designs out the door with unprecedented speed.
One thing really stands out, which is that Bricks and Minifigs is pointing the finger at the franchisee for an "unauthorized" consignment deal. While the blog post has a screenshot of the contract specifically allowing consignments. Which undercuts a large part of the corporate argument.
There was a livestream last night where the Bricks and Minifigs COO said that the franchise agreement has a clause saying that the operations manual overrules the franchise agreement and they can update the operations manual at any time. BAM's court filing instead says that the franchise agreement allows consignment services, but "limited expressly to those approved by BAM".
There's good evidence that it was expressly approved in the form of social media posts advertising the consignment on their social media pages. Difficult for them to argue either ignorance or that the arrangement wasn't authorised, both of which aren't really relevant to the demonstrated facts of the dispute.
Yes but generally one cannot walk into a store and buy a fake id, then turn around and hand it to another cashier in the same store for a restricted purchase. Which I think would be the closer metaphor.
Except that each of the parent's chat windows has zero context that the other window's request even exists, so from each window's point of view it's as if one person walks in to a store to buy a fake ID, and then somewhere else in a different universe on a different timeline a different person walks into a different store to hand that same fake ID over to a different cashier for the restricted purchase.
The LLMs are doing the best they can with absolutely zero context. Which has got to be a hard problem, IMO.
Except that's the point. It is the same store. It is two different cashiers. The second one doesn't know you got the ID from the first one, that's why it works. The point is that if a store like that existed, it would be stupid as fuck.
Also, at least in ChatGPT, it has access to every other session, so you're never working with zero context unless you create a new account (and even then they could have other fingerprinting, I just haven't tested it).
I haven't trusted that disable switch for a while now... I'd always had it disabled, but there was one conversation in particular where it referenced a past conversation - despite memory being disabled - and when I asked it why it responded the way it did, it pretended I was mistaken and told me it has no memory of past conversations, even though I could scroll up and see it in the response.
Just because you flip a switch doesn't mean the switch is _actually_ flipped. Same thing goes for turning off wifi/Bluetooth on iOS.
If it's a software switch, it's closer to a promise than a guarantee.
My favourite example of bureaucracy that I've ever personally experienced and that I consider to be a hole in one is when I had to show my ID to pick up my passport from the office. I paused for a second and asked the lady what was up with that and if I can now use my passport if I got back in the line for something else without using my ID and she said yes.
He bought his way into politics, came in with a chainsaw (almost literally), realized he didn't want to be in politics after all and rage quit. It may not make him a dumbass, but it certainly makes him some sort of ass.
As someone else mentioned above, with jam bands each performance is unique, and people definitely value getting access to every show. For bands repeating the same set as identically as possible on a tour, not sure how much it matters which performance you listen to. Although some people might be into it, for the "I was there" novelty factor.
Using what mechanism? Most Linux updates are not pushed but rather pulled at the user request. You can use Linux totally offline. This is fundamentally different than a webapp, where code is sent with every visit
Debian requires unattended-upgrades to be installed (it's not installed by default), Mint and Fedora has the option of enabling automatic updates (disabled by default), Arch has no mechanism for automatic updates.
Distros have mirrors and they don't know which one you use. The updaters don't send user IDs and downloading the package lists is separate from downloading the packages. So targeted backdoor distrubution is much harder than a company's web UI with user logins targeting a specific user.
Signal pushing updates every other day is pretty much a security anti-pattern though. It makes it almost as vulnerable as a web app to this kind of thing, but this isn't the typical Linux software experience by any stretch.
The checksums are verified automatically, based on a key bootstrapped by the original install (which could, though likely not done, be verified by other means). As happened with xz, you either get everyone or no-one.
I've been doing some RAG prototypes with hybrid search using pg_textsearch plus pgvector and have been very pleased with the results. Happy to see a 1.0 release!
Relevant to this story, laser eye surgery was developed in the late 80s/early 90s and can improve sight to the level that some who were legally blind no longer are.
Yeah, but don't expect this level of fine granularity from government, any government, thats ridiculous expectations. Heck, I wouldn't expect it neither from any private company as a default state.
I wouldn't expect it from any goverment either, but I would expect it from someone who allegedly read the story and is trying to share relevant information.
