I don’t understand how it’s not illegal

From my understanding and IANAL there are two main problems.

1) most law requires intent, especially criminal. OpenAI certainly didn't "intend" to hack these companies given they did sandbox them etc.

2) Given the agent hacked them, not a human, a lot of law requires a person/employee to have done it to hold the company liable if it was part of their work duties.

I think the only real potential ground is negligence (in not sandboxing them correctly and being reckless with running these tests at all), but this requires not taking reasonable precautions. They could argue that they _did_ but it was so novel the precautions failed. But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case.

Interestingly this was solved with new laws for self driving cars, most of which assign the company that is operating the car as the "person" involved explicitly.

Your honor, it wasn't me who robbed the bank and shot the security guards, it was the gun!

then the clerks start handing me money, what am i to do? not take it? i was just trying to get back safely to my home...

I do not believe we have reached the point where society and the legal frameworks recognize a software program as a legal person.

There is no "agent done it". The only reason someone can even bring up such an argument with a straight face is to absolve themselves (yes, you) of any responsibility for their own behavior.

That's me being generous and not assuming straight up that you are either a troll, a bot, or intentionally a malicious criminal.

> But it's important to say if this happens again in the future it's arguably much harder to try and make this case.

That’s the point though.

This has happened multiple times, and it’s their algorithm that they are choosing to run.

I can’t tell if it’s just normal art-writing nonsense or AI-helped nonsense anymore

AI-helped nonsense is nowhere near a peak, I wish I could place a bet on the ascendancy of AI-assisted nonsense

SGLang also accepts vibe coded PRs, but seems to be more careful about what goes in

Cursor has a surprising amount of inertia, though, at least where I work.

I've recently moved to a company that uses Cursor, and I'm actually quite fond of it.

I basically never use the editor but the fact that there's a review UI for all the agent work is incredibly helpful.

For me, that makes the models much more usable. I've also been using GPT models a lot, as they're cheaper and less vomit inducing than Claudes text, so this is definitely bad news for me.

"Labs" here specifically means "AI/LLM model lab", which that part of Nvidia is unquestionably one of the most open.

Nvidia is also one of the most closed hardware developers around. Two things can be true.

Then this whole comment thread was a diversion though, as it was specifically about the hardware parts and not model training.

Well, the entire context is Nvidia acquiring HF, which is very much in the "lab" side of things, so it's in my opinion slightly blurrier than that.

But it is a good example of people talking past one another and not communicating well, I would think.

Yeah censoring in modern chinese models is mostly done using inference-time censoring, not training-time. A lot less RLHF. Run the weights yourself and you can see that, though it does depend on which company.

StepFun for example, will happily answer it when running Step 3.7 Flash locally

While starting my career in the late 2000s in web design agencies wasn't good for my stress levels, it absolutely gave me an appreciation for some things that working at a ~15k employee corporate just doesn't. I can tell exactly which of my coworkers come from the "outside world" vs those who joined here as a grad and have only ever worked here haha

I love my Spark-like, but even for training you're better off using Vast or Runpod or whatever to rent cloud compute. Much faster and cheap as hell, to be honest.

I do set up my initial runs and likes like quantisation-aware-distillation on my Spark-like to test it out and get it working, so it has value! But its not "worth" it other than its fun hardware to tinker with, IMO.

> it never pays for itself.

Exactly; its a development box for fiddling with GPU hardware with a large amount of video-addressable memory. It's not an inference box, really, though it's neat that I can at all!

They also need to tell people what quantisation they're using. Because some 4 bit version is not the same as BF16, no matter what KLD suggests.

I'm using the unsloth dynamic Q4 and getting good results. I was running Q5, but Q4 gives more context headroom so I can run two agents in parallel with ~100k context each with 32GB vram.