I run an OpenClaw VM and used Claude Code to build the VM scripts. The VM is connected to local llama.cpp, so OpenClaw and the models are running on my own physical hardware.
It’s funny, most physicians agree that the cheap disposable stethoscopes in isolation rooms are the best, mostly because they are so loud it’s difficult miss anything with them. However, I am not a cardiologist so they may have a different opinion.
I've actually found them pretty terrible. I can't hear subtle findings at all with those. My usual stethoscope is an older-model Littman Cardiology III with stiff rubber and a dual pediatric-adult head. I've had it for over 25 years.
I guess it's different strokes, because I can definitely hear subtle sounds much easier with them. In fact normal sounds sound like it is going to blow out my ears. The only issue I have is consistency; it's difficult to gauge how much something has changed over time with different stethoscopes, especially pulmonary edema and wheezing.
I would really disagree as a physician that's used a lot of random crap stethoscopes when I don't have one or in an iso room. Those disposable ones are different in what they pick up, some findings are louder others not detectable. Sure I can pick up some stuff like rubs and systolic murmurs but you aren't going to get more subtle findings like diastolic murmurs and fine crackles. Probably a combination of certain frequencies responding and also me being used to mine.
>I've sued two parties for copyright infringement and won and a third settled out of court for a substantial sum. You don't tell a judge you don't need to prove you wrote the code, that's an automatic loss. Then there are such things as expert witnesses who will interview you and check how much you know about the code you claim you wrote.
This doesn't really make sense; in no way can an "expert" interview definitively assert someone wrote a piece of code or not, especially if the person has access to the code beforehand.
Everybody has had a complete 180 in terms of copyright protections. Before, nobody cared about downloading music, movies, TV shows, or pirating games. Now, when the copyright law is affecting them, they are gungho about protecting these billion-dollar companies' copyrights.
The music and movie companies have power. They have the funds to bankrupt you with a small army of lawyers. You as an individual do not stand a chance against corporate lawyers. They can destroy your life over fairly minimal and non-violent offenses.
AI companies are backed by the very powerful. They can steal all they want and use the same army of lawyers to bankrupt any small rights holder. The big rights holders go to the same parties and allow it to happen.
Regardless of the actual take on copyright, both methods skullfuck the little guy without power.
People cry foul because, at least in the US, we claim to live in a free country based on equality, yet there is a very obvious caste system of the haves and the havenots.
It errodes the legitimacy of the system. Imagine if for years you see news reports of a mother getting a judgment against her where she owes 100s of thousands because she seeded a Brittany Spears song. Then you suddenly see the same laws that were leveraged to instill fear in you, tossed aside when the rich and powerful say it doesn't count anymore, you're going to cry foul!
It's not a hypocrisy of position on copyright, it's bearing witness to the illegitimacy of the laws they're bound by.
You are attempting to invoke strawman. So is your point that there is not a significant overlap between posters who think that AI companies should not be allowed to pirated use copyrighted material in their training corpus and posters who themselves pirated copyrighted material such as movies, music, games, etc.?
Yes, that is their point. Do you have evidence against it?
I'm sure you can find some overlap, but I bet the vast majority is caused by people making a distinction between commercial and noncommercial piracy. I don't think there's a big cohort of piracy hypocrites.
Due to the nature of the argument, of course I do not have evidence for or against it. However, I am willing to leave it at that, because I think that any rational observer will be able to look at the general mood toward copyright/privacy online (including using Limewire back in the day, pirating movies, downloading Photoshop etc.) and come to their own conclusion whether or not it's plausible that there isn't a significant overlap between the two.
Its not a 180. You can be against copyright but as long as copyright is still being enforced on you then you can think it should be enforced on AI companies.
I'd prefer no copyright but we live in a world where there is copyright so its unfair that only AI companies get to be immune.
Its not about "billion-dollar companies' copyrights", but also about voluntary copyleft free software. If I license my code under GPL I don't want other persons/companies just whitewash that code through LLMs and use it in their proprietary code.
I agree with this, and I think that it is an open question whether or not training on copyrighted material is considered transformative or not. However, someone said that thumbnails of full photos are considered transformative enough to allow fair use, and LLM training is (in my opinion) clearly more transformative than converting a picture to a thumbnail. But we will see how it plays out.
Naw, we just want people to know. We followed all Cursor rules, thought we had protected all API keys, and trusted the backups of a heavily used infrastructure company. Cautionary tale sharing with others.
It’s a good cautionary tale -- in hindsight the danger signs are clear, but it’s also clear why you thought it was OK and how third parties unfortunately let you down.
The “agent’s confession” is the least interesting and useful part of the whole saga. Nothing there helps to explain why the disaster happened or what kind of prompting might help avoid it.
The key mistake is accidentally giving the agent the API key, and the key letdown is the lack of capability scoping or backups in the service.
The main lessons I take are “don’t give LLMs the keys to prod” and “keep backups”. Oh, and “even if you think your setup is safe, double-check it!”
OK, so what I don't get is that from the GitHub page, it seems like that statement is purposely misleading. For the 17-bit key, the quantum computer correctly recovered the key in it's single run, while urandom used 2/5 runs. At 5 runs, I don't think one could say the quantum calculation is definitely better with any confidence, but the reverse should also be true; he hasn't actually proven that urandom performed at an equivalent rate to the quantum calculation. The only thing I can think of is if he is saying that the original group should have done more runs on the quantum computer to prove it. But from the framing he is using, seems like he is disingenuously declaring that the quantum computer is equivalent to a random number generator.
Let's not ignore the entirety of reality and what has been going on for the last few years to defend a pestilence on mankind you probably have stock invested in. I'm not going to acknowledge how insane of an argument that is you're making. It's like you heard of zero leaks, zero law suits, zero open source complaints. Zero anything. Just either intentionally or unintentionally astroturfing.
Yea, I never got how people are even able to hit the weekly limits so consistently. Maybe it's because they use it for work? But in that case, you would expect the employer to cover it so idk.
>I'm super skeptical of the influx of "DAE think Opus sucks now. Let's all move to Codex!" nonsense that has flooded HN. A part of it is the ex-girlfriend thing where people are angry about something and try to force-multiply their disagreement, but some of it legitimately smells like astroturfing. Like OpenAI got done pay $100M for some unknown podcaster and start hiring people to write this stuff online.
A lot of people are angry about the whole openclaw situation. They are especially bitter that when they attempted to justify exfiltrating the OAuth token to use for openclaw, nobody agreed with them that they had the right to do so, and sided with Claude that different limits for first-party use is standard. So they create threads like this, and complain about some opaque reason why Anthropic is finished (while still keeping their subscription, of course).
I guess the issue with the first one would be actually getting the job. If jobs were that valuable, I'd expect other factors not necessarily related to job performance to be reasons in getting a job, especially knowing (or being related to) the right person.
reply