The cheap, fast and smart-enough LLM space has been wildly neglected. Jev is one of the few players truly targeting that space. And for a lot of people it is the first time they are asking "what could I build if llms were interaction-speed fast?". The answers are cool, the problem is that Jev is not, I think, smart-enough yet to have that many applications, but it's smart enough that you can start to see what they will look like.

Why does this necessitate using closed models? I don't see the difference between putting your data on a cloud DB and using a cloud model.

Because the big labs are incredibly untrustworthy. Their leaders are publicly lying constantly.

I don't think you need to trust them if you are running on something like bedrock. Then I think you're trusting AWS or whatever cloud equivalent you want.

I think that's true for Sam, not sure about the others.

https://www.openaifiles.org/ceo-integrity

Did you try it? I'm curious if "certain ML accelerators" is an anti-China restriction.

They're sugar coating it. They've been nerfing AI research and development for years now. Their claim that it's only "certain ML accelerators" is a bold-faced lie, coming from the company that lies incessantly.

This is an Apache 2.0 open source project

Don't you end up sitting there waiting while the agent goes off and executes the plan?

No I do other things. Oftentimes I'll just do it from my phone when I'm out and about and just work with it asynchronously.

I had the same experience for my writing that was AI generated.

They can raise cash by selling off the stock they have spent a decade buying back.

Absolutely. They've just put themselves in a pretty poor situation to do even that. Whoops.

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that OpenAI didn't obviously break a cyber law because it requires intent which doesn't exist (with the definition of intent in a case like this being an open grey area). I think rules around making organizations obviously legally responsible for the cyber attacks performed by agents under their control would be good.

In many areas of criminal law, willful ignorance is not an excuse. One could potentially argue that the sandbox setup at OpenAI that led to the hacking incident at Hugging Face could fall into this category.

Beyond that, there's always tort law, which doesn't require intent.

I am being specific about cyber crime in the united states, which (if AI is to be believed) requires intent.

And for negligence, there's a bit of an issue where the HF hack was probably more scary than damaging. HF is asking for compute as repayment instead, which would be fun because it completes the OpenAI -> HuggingFace -> NVIDA -> OpenAI cycle.

I think they are genuine believers, but I think it's naive to not think that commercial pressure doesn't play a role in their positions, either explicitly or, perhaps more likely, subliminally.

The x-risk stance and commercial stance have evolved to be the same thing - Anthropic must win, and then everything else seems to work backwards from that. Can you believe it, the path they think is best for x-risk involves them becoming filthy rich. And threats to their commercial dominance like distillation get framed in a way to turn them into x-risk concerns.

Sometimes. Other times writing is just communicating thought that already happened. Say for instance a weekly status update. Maybe you get something out of that, but frequently you don't get much or anything.