I imagine Astra is/will soon will be on Cerebras?

Nope, OpenAI partnered with Broadcom to produce their own chips and the performance/watt looks good

Is it definitely out of the question?

https://openai.com/index/cerebras-partnership/

> who clearly isn't a sociopath

Or is a sociopath, just not *clearly*.

He could have done this if he was from a more privileged background for sure.

So does Fair Use in the states?

Actually, it’s because, as per Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., facts cannot be copyrighted.

This legal trick only works for rewriting an article reporting on a factual event—since the events are uncopyrightable facts, the only part of the article which can be copyrighted is the stylistic writing.

Let me quote from a recent legal opinion on AI summaries (The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al 2025):

>>> Exhibit 11 to the CIR complaint provides website links to articles that CIR alleges were unlawfully abridged by defendants in their ChatGPT and Copilot outputs. (CIR, FAC Ex. 11.) Examining the similarities between those outputs and the corresponding CIR articles, including the “total concept and feel, theme . . . sequence, pace, and setting,” Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581, 588 (2d Cir. 1996), the Court concludes that the “abridgments” contained in Exhibit 11 are not substantially similar to CIR’s copyrighted works as a matter of law.

The alleged abridgments are detailed summaries, usually in bullet point form, of the facts contained in CIR’s articles. Those summaries—which differ in style, tone, length, and sentence structure from CIR’s articles—are not “substantially similar” to CIR’s copyrighted works. They present the “facts in a different arrangement”—bullet point lists or short summary paragraphs—“with a different sentence structure and different phrasing.” Nihon, 166 F.3d at 71. In short, the abridgments in Exhibit 11 are not substantially similar, qualitatively or quantitatively, to the original CIR articles as a matter of law. The Court therefore grants OpenAI’s motion to dismiss CIR’s claim of direct infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 insofar as it relates to the “abridgments” contained in Exhibit 11.<<<

But I meant, isn't saving articles for personal record a legitimate use of Fair Use? Do you really need to paraphrase them first?

Copyright only covers distribution, but I distribute the AI summaries on my blog. With paywalled articles and the usual archives having serious reliability issues, it allows readers of my blog to get context about articles I comment on.

Here’s an example: https://samboy.github.io/blog/entries/2026-08-28.html

The links are AI summaries, which, in turn, link to the original articles, but, in some cases, the original articles are paywalled. For the ones which aren’t paywalled, having a local summary prevents link rot.

Fair use covers quoting someone to comment on them. For example, in New Era Publications International, ApS v. Henry Holt and Co., it was ruled that quoting Hubbard saying “The trouble with China is, there are too many Chinks here.” was fair use, since the book in question was commenting on Hubbard’s personality, and could only reasonably do so by directly quoting him.

From that decision:

>>> these brief quotations from unpublished copyrighted work display a compelling fair use purpose. [...] These quotations are in mockery, to show Hubbard's bigotry, bias and coarse lack of taste. This is not an instance of the biographer/critic free riding on the creative talent of the subject. <<<

I'm confused and disturbed by the need to invoke Pangram (a model) as the arbiter of slop here. Slop, like smut, is self evident. You know it when you see it. Yes, some effort may be required before realizing that something is slop, which, yeah, is annoying, but that's nothing in comparison to outsourcing your shiite detection to a model! What do you get, except the loss of self worth, by needing a model to have the confidence to call something slop?

> Why do people have this reaction? Beyond having to endure aggravating stylistic tics, when reading a piece that has had substantial LLM assistance, we — the readers — don’t know what is real and what isn’t.

This is well said. But, here too, I would pause and reflect on what it means to (think you) know what is real and what isn't in a pre-LLM setting. For example, authority bias predates LLMs, and can have disastrous consequences.

The part about false positives was telling. The author doesn't want to demonize human trash, that's not fashionable, they're only concerned about virtue signalling.

Try codex! This is not the case there at all.

I use codex daily and a moderately complex plan + a few files is more than enough context to make it blatantly ignore prompts like "stop and ask before adding new layers or data structures"

Is that context rot or model deficiency?

SaaS where I work has an MCP, it's popular with our customers. They can use it without knowing what a CLI is, just from however they use their AI.

I use MCP all the time at work as well from Claude code etc, it's convenient with uniformity of configuration and access inside the harness.

Yeah these are microscopic

I don't think that the Anisakis species discussed in this article would generally be considered microscopic, as demonstrated by various photos included in the article. The Trypanorhyncha larvae are smaller, but also likely to be visible without microscopy as well, on the basis of the scale I'm inferring from the included photos vs. the muscle striation in the tuna.

Larvae are tiny and translucent and mold with each jump from one host to the next,

I can assure you by direct experience than the adults colonies could pass for a noodless dish at the first look.

How is this comment relevant and why is it the top post on this thread.

It's cynical and critical of marketing? Many of us are cynical, and there's an argument that being cynical is lazy because most of its arguments are obvious because they are rooted in truth.