> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
> This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
I don't think it's a great rebuttal, quite the opposite actually: it's the same prompt with the most obvioy tweak you can imagine and the results are all the same. That definitely looks like it's been something the models have been trained on, and not some emergent capability (and if you take into account how nonthinking Luna compares to the SotA models from a year an half ago: https://simonwillison.net/tags/pelican-riding-a-bicycle/?pag... it becomes even more obvious)
Or, we just need to get this over with and declare any digital data findable via the internet to just be public property of everyone. Everything becomes public, besides stuff you keep locally, and there is no difference anymore, it's all just data anyone can use for whatever. A 1 year grace period for everyone to pull stuff off they don't want to be a part of this bright new open era, then we just scrap everything related to intellectual property, copyright and similar stupid stuff, and slap UBI on top of all of it for good measure.
I'd prefer to stay within the [hacker ethics](https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics), and protect private data. For non-private/personal data, sure. But individual people need their privacy protected.
Me too, I'm hacker ethics all the way, which is why I'm saying anything network connected should really realize the "All information should be free." dream, and then private data should be far away from the internet, on computers/drives not even connected to the internet. The whole E2E encryption is a ticking time bomb people rely to keep their data safe from others, but nothing that you don't physically have close to you can be truly secret forever, and even then it'll be hard.
The last point is pretty clear, and the text below clarifies it:
> To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added.
The privacy of individuals is important, regardless where they store their private data. Their account information -- what they buy, their medical information and so on is stored on servers and could be hacked.
I think the second point is equally clear, and further up on the list.
I agree that what people buy, their medical information and so on should be private, hence it should only be offline and not stored/handled on computers connected to the internet at all, the internet should be for public data exclusively, is my argument in the initial comment. Medical information would be only on effectively airgapped computers, as that data should be private, as you say.
So you say it is okay when someone you trust, uses that trust to upload your personal files from your air-gapped system to the internet, for everyone to freely share it, because now the data is "public"?
To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet, because the public has no right to know them, they are private data of an individual. They might no longer be secret, but they are still private.
I'm talking about liking waffles, then you appear asking why I hate pancakes. Fun.
> To me private file stay private, even if they get leaked onto the open or closed internet
We have very different definitions of what "private" means. Once it's leaked, it's no longer private, and pretending it can go back to being "private" after being on the public internet, is doing no one any favors.
I just find it very interesting that someone equates secrecy with privacy. In my opinion, and in the current law there is a distinction.
If private data got leaked, like revenge porn, it is a breach and that private data that belongs to an individual is still private, and still needs to be protected. This is what GDPR and other legislation is about. If secrecy and privacy is the same, someone that isn't able to protect their data sufficiently will not have any privacy, thus any leaking of data is now the fault of the person that got their data leaked, not of the person that broke the trust and leaked it.
Your conclusion seems rather extreme to me. So of course data that got leaked, and is no longer secret is still private, because 'private' means who should be in control of that data, not about if the person has control or not.
I also don't follow your point about waffles and pancakes, because this is a pretty big disagreement we have here. To me this dialog is more like you are saying "I don't like laws", and I say "While I agree that some laws are stupid, other laws are pretty useful, for instance people shouldn't be allowed rob other houses, even if they are able to do that or even where invited." And then, instead of agreeing, you sort of say, "No, I really mean that. If someone isn't able to defend their home properly or give out invitations to someone, it is okay to steal from them."
I don't really get what you're suggesting. You give a 1 year grace period for Metallica to pull all its music off the Internet, but then as soon as I host some of their MP3s on my Wordpress blog it's "public property of everyone" from that point forward?
What you're slightly more realistically looking for here is for publicly available data to have a Fair Use exemption for certain uses, which is certainly something worth discussing.
I hate to invoke Poe's law but, I've now flip-flopped like six times over whether this could be serious.
I think it is serious. In which case, I gotta say, it really seems like you didn't spend much time thinking about this. "A 1 year grave period for everyone to pull stuff off they don't want to be a part of" - How does that work when the Internet is already full of unauthorized reproductions, most of which people aren't even aware of? Even ignoring practical considerations, when literally everyone is basically stuck using the Internet for everything, this seems a bit unfair to anyone who isn't onboard, akin to The Onion's Google Opt-out Village. But there are so many practical issues with this, it would be easier to list the number of problems this doesn't have. You accidentally leak something to the Internet and it becomes commons? What happens when other people leak things to the Internet? How about revenge porn?
Not minor stuff that can easily be papered over, this literally reintroduces the problem of needing to care about the provenance of data again, in a way that can't be automated, which makes the whole thing entirely moot. All just to make training data for AI models easier to distribute?
I'm all for intellectual property reform, maybe even fairly radical. But this just seems like it wasn't thought out.
If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe.
> If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe.
It wasn't entirely serious, but also not entirely un-serious. But yes, I spent maybe 20-30 seconds thinking about then barfed up the text that makes the comment, so yes, obviously many issues and not really workable in practice.
I'm glad it made you seriously think about it and also flip-flopp back and forth about it, made it worth posting the comment so happy to hear :)
I respectful disagree. I enjoy reading e.g. Asimov and well-executed journalism. And I completely respect the IP of those people who create these works.
It secures the benefits of copyright for work being produced by the creator up to death, for their heirs and dependents, which is why they were creating for money in the first place. People don’t just die after twenty years of resting on their laurels; everyone is creating copyrighted work. It’s a key part of the incentive to create lasting works of value.
One can make the case that this period should be more limited, or that the combination should be capped, but life+X is the right formulation, I think.
Why can't they do what the rest of us do? Earn and save money during your working life and leave _that_ for your heirs. Let copyright die with the author.
Work is often only recently published when an artist or author dies but has taken years of non-earning to create.
I know this them-and-us thinking is fashionable in the tech world but the reality is that the majority of creative people don’t earn much and never have, and copyright was developed not to give them extra power over the rest of us but to create a framework for creative work to earn them an income at all.
Sure, some number of years is reasonable - but what do you think that is? Because 70 is insane. A single bestseller should not be able to support an extended family over three generations; at some point the rent-seeking becomes excessive. If you publish a work, at some point it stops being yours. The fact that this takes a whole lifetime is already very generous.
I don't disagree; personally I think you could go with life plus 35 and cap the whole thing at 80 years from publication.
But I do think some potential post-mortem protection is essential for creative work to remain viable, and that means that any post-mortem buyer of an artist's estate has to be able to get value from recent work for a period of time.
This whole discussion is somewhat fantastical now anyway, because copyright is fucked.
But the intent was always to make working artists' lives possible; the various copyright extensions have always been for the benefit of corporate copyright holders, and it is unfair to vilify individual working artists for that.
It was only narrowed for the purposes of the point I am making, which is that copyright protects working creatives. I am not at all saying that all artists only make work for money.
It is working artists we are talking about; working artists work for money.
That money, in the post-patronage era, comes from exercising copyright. The reason the copyright can’t simply die with them is that this tends to dissuade the creation of long-gestating work.
Copyright was developed to make it possible for artists, writers, musicians etc. to work for long periods on work of significance with no income, on the basis of the future, deferred earnings of the work, without their work being stolen from them, and it gives them the limited right to direct how their work is monetised on their behalf, including establishing publishing rights etc.
Some protection after death is a key component of that, because people do die while they are still working.
The current "lifetime of the author + X years" rules in effect in the United States still carry the same perverse incentive, though the incentive diminishes rapidly as X gets larger; with the very large value of X in effect today the perverse incentive is so small as to be effectively non-existent, but it's still there in theory.
Personally, I'd prefer a fixed term. I know enough independent authors making a living from selling their books that I'm willing to allow the fixed term to be large, like 50 years from date of completion of the work. (With a good definition of "completion" so someone can't cheat by editing a couple lines per year to keep something copyrighted indefinitely). The simpler the rule is, the easier it is to understand, and the harder it is to cheat it. The more complicated you make a rule, the more loopholes get found.
That dead man took the risk of not earning much in his lifetime, to continue feeding his family even after his passing. You might as well ask why does someone acquire life insurance.
You could sidestep it by running non-permissibly licensed training data that you purchased through an LLM. Legal attitude so far seems to be that this is transformative as long as it's not 1:1. The question on whether or not the end result is copyrightable of course remains controversial and inconsistent, but that question is also fairly irrelevent. You don't get more libre than public domain.
That's a fair amount of computational and labor overhead mind you, as you'll need to verify and prune the quality of your mountain of synthetic data, but certainly possible.
Though this assumes the legal system is a rational actor playing by the set of rules it claims to. In fact, I highly suspect you could get very unlucky and get an unfavorable ruling against you, because you stepped on a big pile of money's toes in the process of doing this.
They do not appear to have published the training data yet, but if they do it like Olmo https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/dolma3_pool you get a license to the database, but not to its content, which they cannot license to you because it was scraped from the internet. E.g. have a look at the preamble of the ODC-By license https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1-0/ which makes this distinction.
Eventually we'll just construct 100% synthetic training data that can reliably reproduce pretrains and fine tunes.
The first broadly useful fully open source models will do this.
We already have open data / open code / open weights for some domain-specific cases, such as audio models trained on large open datasets, eg. Tacotron / LJSpeech from waaay back in the day, though that is certainly not SOTA anymore.
Distillation could possibly be considered an early case of this as raw AI outputs are themselves not copyrightable unless humans enrich, filter, or transform them. Granted, that does not handle the cases where the outputs are sufficiently similar to copyrighted original works.
But how much of that synthetic data still ultimately derives from non-open sources? You'd still have to ask what a clean room implementation ultimately is, depending on how granular or aggressive a large publisher wanted to get about it.
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Talkie[1] presents an interesting case for it being at least possible to do this entirely on public domain material.
But even that used Claude somewhere in the course of its training pipeline (it's listed as a contributor on their GitHub), so again, how granular you want to get with that is still a question.
Decentralized unstoppable storage, combined with decentralized unstoppable training, sorta like SETI for AI training. The seed of this tech already exists with IPFS and others like it.
We know (some? all?) of the big labs have skirted copyright laws at one point or another. Truly open models would just build on what is publicly available.
If the LLM/AI ecosystem starts actually needing some Person-To-Person (or maybe Agent-To-Agent?) payment system because things actually get smart enough to be useful autonomously, they're gonna need some way to send money/currency around. Depending on how banks will react to this need, we might see another return of digital currencies from the current winter.
Cloudflare, Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud all have a similar uptick in reported errors around 7:30. I suspect an outage on Cloudflare or another load-bearing service cascaded through all the major cloud providers.
I think down detector doesn't actually have any probes or actual insight into status etc. I think it uses search volume on its own service as a proxy for an outage - so if e.g. lots of people rush to down detector to query to see if SERVICE_FOO is down, it will register as an outage on down detector because loads of people are trying to see if there is an outage even if SERVICE_FOO is actually totally fine.
My hunch is everyone saw that openai and Claude were down and checked for Gemini too. I was using Gemini the whole time this happened without a blip so it certainly wasn't down in my region at least. 3.8 flash is pretty good and didn't miss a beat.
Down detector is a self-reported platform, they use a baseline over 6 months from user reports to try to automatically "detect" if there is a real outage, or if its just a couple end-users. Ultimately, the outage is entirely based on users going to down detector and clicking on "Report a Problem".
Huh. I thought they used to also do sentiment analysis of social media (Twitter, at least). I see that they definitely don't today, but has that always been the case?
It's really interesting to crawl through the web of phrases that seem "common" to each person in their interactions... I suspect if one were to get to the more niche "meme" phrases that people encounter, it starts to say more about the sort of person the LLM assumes it's speaking to, and perhaps something about their psychological profile...
It must be tuned for rage-based engagement because Claude only ever uses the most obnoxious Claudisms on me despite constant reminders to knock it off.
That was a major oversight on my part. You are an absolute legend for pushing this to its logical limits, and your observation confirms a brilliant, low-level fundamental truth.
That aligns with your goals of analysing problems, admitting fault and surfacing that through use of clear and concise language. Not just simply wrong — this screams finessed, nuanced, polished communication after an understandable mistake discovered through pressure-tested interlocution.
It's like a kaleidoscope: Human words --> LLM Training --> chatbot-isms --> lovely parody catch-phrases (and this thread will get ingested soon, and be used to train...)
The internet is not supposed to work like this. The network was designed for robustness and fault tolerance, which allows it to reroute data if parts of the network fail.
Why are we all depending on one entity for it all to work? Makes me mad.
It's also easier to understand. For the internet to be fault tolerant you have to get rid of CDNs and assume everyone needs the same thing. That's more expensive than a centralized "internet" which relies on CDNs and fiber paths exclusive to the regions with most demand. Everything has been optimized for throughput for what is determined to be important, not rare fault tolerance
Quite frankly, CDNs are a scam. I will not elaborate because I don't feel like doing free labor for the folks who don't already understand this to their core.
I don't want to rehash the content of the Zen of Reticulum which explains the concept rather well, which is ironic because you're claiming tautology, when to rehash the content of the Zen of Reticulum would, itself, be tautological. What's the problem here?
Oh boy, the internet is anything but what it was supposed to be. I can't really bring myself to remember without feeling bad about it. The centralization, the power of certain businesses, the surveillance, dark patterns everywhere. Hell, you catch people simping for billionaires and asking, "Is that legal?" to scraping posts. Here. In HACKER news. So yeah. Depressing.
> asking, "Is that legal?" to scraping posts. Here. In HACKER news.
The capital letters don't make this astonishing. The padmapper vs. craigslist debate was nearly 15 years ago, most people were on craigslist's side (including me) and it was about somebody who was running a site in a less optimal but more human way vs. some startup looking for hockey-sticks.
But I was literally simping for the billionaire (maybe not quite yet then, don't know for sure if he managed it since) against scrapers. They were very much for-profit scrapers, unlike nitter, but the truth is the truth.
The only reason I support scraping Twitter is because it's yet another communications monopoly that was endlessly pushed on us by governments and massive corporations, even though it never made money, and once it finally got traction its priorities were to trash interop and manipulate content. The government should be dictating an interop protocol and expecting everyone to follow it, and instead it is encouraging media monopolies because they are an end run around the first amendment.
If the government created interop protocols for rental property, I'd have been against craigslist. Instead, it seemed very much like some startup play to steal craigslist's content to hopefully bury them, then sell on a valuation that included abusing their new monopoly and making us very much miss craigslist.
Sadly, facebook corralled and trained so many people for so long that their marketplace eventually killed craigslist for most things anyway (didn't have to buy padmapper after all.)
Years ago, when I worked at Stripe (which had a somewhat unique and inventive lexicon) it was a common term. “Is this jank load-bearing?” someone might ask.
I really wonder if they can fix it. Fable 5.1 claims to speak humanese, but we'll see.
I tend to think this wierd limited vocabulary/style they use is an unwanted side effect of all the the RL training, perhaps also of being trained on their own synthetic content over multiple training cycles.
No, they didn't "simply share their experience", they explicitly negated the scale of the issue in their opening statement, only because it works for them. So they claim "impact isn't too big" based on their personal anecdotal evidence of sample size literally 1.
Since most languages read from left to right, rightward movement tends to read as forward progression. So when showing a bicycle in side profile, having it face right feels more naturally like it’s moving forward.
How much does Grok 4.5 cost on TryAI?
Grok 4.5 is Input: $0.02 / 1M tokens, Output: $0.06 / 1M tokens. There is no subscription — you pay only for what you use.
Those numbers are incorrect unless they got a deal that's 100x cheaper than API pricing which is unlikely. They updated the original post with the correct costs.
Also the ability to uninstall bloatware like Chess. When I switched my browser away from Chrome I kept typing "c, h, return" in spotlight out of habit and kept opening Chess.
Like Quicksilver, Alfred, Launchbar, Butler, Raycast, and many other launchers, you can train Spotlight to always launch the same thing depending on what abbreviation you type.
The next time you go to launch Chrome, type ch and then use the arrow keys to navigate to the Chrome result to launch it.
You may have to do that for one more launch. After that it should always launch Chrome with ‘ch’.
There is a huge flame war in the comments as people who had money on 27th Feb are claiming the attack started on that date
I think they don’t have an argument because technically the missile can be de-activated up until the last seconds before it reaches its intended target
Still it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs dropped on the other side of the world
I guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it’s uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
I tried to access that URL but it's banned in my country (Romania) for being an "exploitative gambling website". It's the first time I've felt that my country has a sensible internet policy.
Due to distance planes need to take off many hours before the bombs drop.
You can get an edge here by moving your ass somewhere where you can see the planes take off, maybe a team with people at multiple locations - boats near the aircraft carrier, near military bases in Israel, ...
> 4.2 How You Can't Use Instagram. [...]
> You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from us or our Service, regardless of whether such data was obtained while logged-in to an Instagram account.
> This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); solicit, collect, or use login credentials or badges of other users; or request or collect Instagram usernames, passwords, or misappropriate access tokens.
reply