So many people complaining about Helm but I'll share my 2 experiences. At my last 2 companies we shipped Helm charts for administrators to easily deploy our stuff.
It worked fine and was simple enough which is what the goal was. But then people came along wanting all sorts of customisations to make the chart configurable to work in their environments. The charts ended up getting pretty unwieldy.
Helm is a product that serves users who like customization to the nth-degree. But everyone else hates it.
Personally, I would prefer it if the 'power users' just got used to forking and maintaining their own charts with all the tweaks they want. The reason they don't do that of course is that it's harder to keep up with updates - maybe that's the problem that needs solving.
I recently learned about Helmfile's support for deep declarative patching of rendered charts, without requiring full forks with value-template-wiring. It's been a gamechanger!
In your context, it might help certain clients. It does require that the upstream commit to not changing its architecture, but if the upstream is primarily bumping versions and adding backwards-compatible features, and if you document all the patches you're recommending in the wild, it might be an effective tool.
Wonder how long before they'll have to start reporting 'suspicious activity' to the government same as financial institutions have to do for money transfers.
You can reasonably assume it is already happening. The only difference is that for FIs it is required by law, that it is relatively similar across the board in terms of implementation and openai is a one giant source of info you wouldn't get anywhere else.
It fairly accurately measured my age, location, place of birth and political inclinations based on our conversations alone. I am certain it can infer a lot more.
The other reason could be the copyright cases they are fighting in court. OAI was ordered to keep all records, including private. Not sure if it was lifted already.
And another could be EU requirements for age verification. AI can produce adult content.
There are may be other reasons, like to prevent using OAI models' output to train competing models.
No other reason? What about simply fraud protection. The same reason they switched new accounts to be where you have to pay to buy credits first instead of paying at the end of the month. There is a ton of fraud in this industry
Absolutely not. It would require product, engineering, admin, etc. effort to do that and unless it isn't required by law why would they waste the time when they have a lot else to do?
They have an ex-NSA chief on the board, and doing surveillance voluntarily may result in government help like getting contracts in South-Korea and Argentine that may bring in far more money than the implementation costs. Perhaps they outsource the implementation to Palantir or the NSA. It is basically a simple middleware that is inserted somewhere once the traffic is decrypted.
So I don't think implementation costs are an obstacle.
Because then the NSA shows up with an NSL, you integrate with the fascist surveillance state or you lose your business. How have people forgotten this so fucking quickly?
To be fair, I am interested in the subject and I don't even remember the name of the telecom that tried to buck under pressure and went out of business not long after. It has been that long. It is possible so I give people some grace.
"is a Level 2 driver assistance system that requires constant supervision by a human driver" - the reason for human supervision might have something to do with uncommon situations (debris in road being such a situation).
Elon's estimates have always been off but it is irresponsible to see an obstacle up ahead and assume the computer would do something about it while the driver and passenger debate on what the said obstacle is. I am not sure if they were trying to win a Darwin Award and I say that as no particularly fan of Musk!
The AI race is like the nuclear arms race. Countries like China will devote an inordinate amount of resources to be the best - it may take a year or two, but in the grand scheme of things that is nothing.
And NVIDIA will lose its dominance for the simple reason that the Chinese companies can serve the growing number of countries under US sanctions. I even suspect it won't be long before the US will try to sanction any allies that buy Chinese AI chips!
China and Russia collectively have a talent pool dense enough to build future products and services the rest of the world uses, if China can produce comparative hardware for AI.
The Europeans invented the car and Ford mass produced it.
Yet, we see Ford as extremely innovative and revolutionary. I think we can draw lots of parallels between a 19th and early 20th century industrializing US and current China.
You may disparage TikTok as a Vine clone, but it redefined the state of the art for recsys algorithms. Google and Meta had to play catch-up with how quickly and how good TikTok is at discovering videos users find interesting out of the ocean of available content.
Typefaces do not have copyright (though they can have design rights or trademark encumberment). Font files, the computer programs that implement typefaces, are protected by copyright and must be licensed.
What if I write a tool that pulls all the vectors out of a font file, puts them in a new font file with a new font id/name, munges it up so they don't have the same hash?
Shapes aren't software, and whatever fool judicial ruling set that precedent is ripe for some loopholing.
Then your font will look awful, because there's a lot more to fonts than just the glyphs. (See the lettering on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pope_Francis_Tomb.jp..., in the lower third of the image.) You cannot adapt the font's kerning or hinting software in this way, since that would be creating a derivative work: you'd have to take measurements from its output and reconstruct it that way, which is rather difficult to do without understanding.
The ruling is not foolish: it's actually one of the more sensible aspects of copyright law imo.
The shape of letters, including their spacing, isn't protectable under US law. Kerning and hinting aren't derivative, because typefaces aren't creative works that anything could be derived from.
>The ruling is not foolish: it's actually one of the more sensible aspects of copyright law imo.
The bar is so low, I fear you might be right on technicality.
Since it was mentioned, is anyone else here using Kasm in a workplace setting? I use it myself and am loving it but I don't know many enterprise users of their stuff although I heard they're hot in the defence sector.
"The AI says I should raise $34.5 billion from investors and make a bid for Google's browser."
I wonder if they've thought about what it'll cost to keep Chrome dominant as a platform including the effort that goes into securing it on an ongoing basis!
