otis

parallelrealität #x

[otis @osxfmn]

@RnaudBertrand Pfizer did it

[Gandalf Stormdrain @auroter]

Looks like Anthropic rug-pulled us again. Completely on schedule.

Several days into the subscription-based trial of Fable, they flipped a switch. They switched quants, they changed up their KV cache to INT-0, they turned whatever degenerate knobs they have in their infrastructure, and it's dumb again.

They do this with every single model release. I'm not sure if you guys have noticed. They drop a new model, it's smart for maybe a week, and then something changes and it becomes incredibly stupid and incredibly difficult to work with.

The entire world is learning what happens when you don't control the weights. You get rug pulled every single time.

This is why closed source AI will lose.

Closed-source AI companies are incentivized to be evil. They're incentivized to be predatory. They're incentivized to experiment on their users like lab rats...

Because they know the writing's on the wall. That's why they're stealing everyone's IP. Look at all the "products" they've launched. They did this with our data. The only way for them to survive is by playing dirty.

I hope that from these last few days with Fable, everyone has enjoyed a preview of what awaits us in the open source utopia that is the not-so-distant future.

GLM5.2 was trading blows evenly with Fable, the first couple days we had access to Fable. Even at a ridiculously low quantization level of 3.8 bits. Now, it's better than Fable.

They make it dumb so that you'll give them your data. They make it dumb so that you can train the next model, by telling it what it's doing wrong. You are helping them oppress you. You are helping them scam you. You are helping them steal everyone's intellectual property.

This is why open source will win. We are only one generation of open source models away from them taking the lead.

You take out the alignment garbage, it gets smarter, smaller, faster.

Closed source will lose, open source will win, and it's already in the bag.

[otis @osxfmn]

@JoePompliano that’s a textbook red card .. your bogus claim is bogus

[Julian Seiferth @juliansfrth]

the worst part about this whole thing is the gaslighting, like this wasn’t a clear red, therefore an injustice corrected. this is one of the clearest red cards i’ve ever seen, balogun almost breaks his opponent’s ankle. https://t.co/WX9THOpYmY

[otis @osxfmn]

@talkSPORT Looks like but not as bad as the balogun because he does not hit the standing leg here

[Bruno Maçães @MacaesBruno]

Not just a red card but a career endangering one that should have received a 5 game suspension

[Ma Wukong 马悟空 @Ma_WuKong]

Curioso que los yanquis no entiendan el concepto de «sanción» cuando todo su modelo geopolítico se basa en la idea de sancionar a todo aquel país que se niegue a hacer lo que ellos mandan.

[Angry Bosnian Fan @AngryBosnianFan]

Had this stupid challenge broken Muharemovic's ankle, most would agree it's red. But because he survived it without major injury, that same exact stupid challenge is now sudddenly not a red, and according to some pundits not even a yellow? Absurd nonsense.

[otis @osxfmn]

@DiscussOrDivide @kevinjonheller The rule is that that attack is a red card

[Mario @PawlowskiMario]

How the fuck this obvious red card was even disputed is beyond me?🟥

[Daniel Solana @DiceElDani]

This completely misunderstands what a red card is.

A red card isn't just a punishment for malicious intent—it's also a sanction for actions that endanger an opponent. Plenty of red cards are given for reckless challenges without any intent to injure.

If "it was an accident" becomes the standard, you've just eliminated half the red cards in football.

The referee saw the incident, applied the Laws of the Game, and FIFA overturned it after the fact. That's the real issue.

[otis @osxfmn]

@tombogert Lol that was a clear red card

[otis @osxfmn]

@FOXSports @Ibra_official Lol

[Mark Granza @markgranza]

The problem here is 'legalism', not scientism. Forget whether the player's hair touched the ball or not. Here's what the offside rule was originally created for: a striker breaks through the defense early or purposely stays behind, finds himself with ten yards of open grass between him and the last defender and only the goalkeeper in front. The rule is one of the oldest in the game because the people who first played it saw something clearly unfair about it, i.e., an advantage that doesn't require skill to create, which, if allowed, would have made the game unwatchable. The problem is that over time people began to conflate the advantage aspect with the mechanics of detecting it, especially since TV programs in the 70s began showing slow-motion replays of gray-area calls over and over in post-match analysis to keep football fans endlessly arguing and their ratings high. This is how you get, for instance, cases in which a forward who times his run perfectly, catching the defender off guard (often running in the opposite direction) and then scoring, is still called "unfair" by other fans because his shoulder or nose or whatever was ahead when the pass occurred, despite the fact that if it would have been behind, if anything, it'd have given him even *more* time to score. It's the same thing that often happens in court. A law is written to stop a particular harm, then lawyers spend decades arguing over the exact wording until the very harm it was meant to stop gets almost forgotten and the letter becomes the law. Nobody watching Croatia's disallowed goal possibly believes that the Croatian player’s touch (even if it happened) created an advantage for his teammate. The ball clearly reaches the latter thanks to the (non-deliberate, thus irrelevant) deflection off the Portugal player. But nobody is thinking about the purpose of the rule anymore, only the technicality of its wording. Hence scientism, which is downstream of legalism in this context and eventually convinced the entire sport that it needed sensors inside the football to detect a hair touch because... why not?

[otis @osxfmn]

@LexAfficial @MKBHD Time you saved lol

[otis @osxfmn]

@hxydnbuilds @DaveShapi Guard rails lol

[otis @osxfmn]

@Buchi_Laba Cant see the difference? Then you are blind

[Whitney Webb @_whitneywebb]

We've been quiet recently because Mark Goodwin and I have been working to write the most comprehensive investigation into Polymarket's origins and ambitions to date.

We found that Polymarket's "official" origin story, that Shayne Coplan founded the company alone in 2020 and then built "the company in his bathroom", is a lie. Polymarket really started years earlier as another company called TokenBnk that was deeply tied to Israeli interests, specifically a crypto company founded by Benjamin Netanyahu's niece and nephew. Coplan has actively tried to obfuscate this company from his story and it's not the only thing either.

In Part 1 of this two-part series, we unravel the real history of Polymarket, directly connecting the company to Peter Thiel's efforts to resurrect controversial DARPA programs from its now defunct Information Awareness Office. Polymarket appears to have been chosen by Thiel and his associates to succeed in resurrecting DARPA's Policy Analysis Market where another Thiel-linked company, Augur, had previously failed.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where we explore the current influence of prediction markets and Polymarket, including how an insidious effort to have prediction markets replace representative democracy as a governance model is already being slowly implemented by the White House.

Read Part 1 here: https://t.co/xTmU5RzoZz

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Anthropic yet again confirmed as the most dystopian tech company out there.

Imagine the outcry if they'd done the same thing with Jews or Blacks: a piece of code that detects if a user is Jewish or Black and immediately reports him back to headquarters on that basis, covertly (they used steganography, a technique designed to make data collection invisible).

And before people start screaming fake news, an Anthropic employee confirmed it's real: https://t.co/0ifiv47J6H

It's incidentally - not that it matters - completely illegal under at least half a dozen European laws: not only is collecting ethnic and racial data forbidden (under, for instance, Europe's GDPR Article 9 and national French law) but doing so without the users' awareness or consent is itself a separate violation. And it's even worse in this case because they explicitly tried to hide this data collection with steganography.

And the immense irony, of course, is that this is precisely the kind of covert surveillance behavior the West - including Anthropic themselves - say China would do and that they want to "protect" people from...

[otis @osxfmn]

@espnpodcasts @LaurensJulien @ESPNFC he said it himself, it's not the most talented squad