I mean, it's an obvious difference in the primary use cases - if you explicitly want an isolated answer, you might clear context and start from scratch, and if you explicitly want a discussion with a persistent companion (as these people did before any of that psychosis started) then you won't do that.
The key missing step which breaks the loop is that while indeed a larger and larger portion of the web is written by language models, that data isn't being used to train new models - at the beginning of LLMs people did indeed want to use "all the web" to train models, but that's not being done now anymore, you either take only old pre-LLM data, or you pay for new 'clean' data, or take extensive filtering steps to avoid accidentally ingesting synthetic data.
The main phrase of the title "model collapse is happening" is untrue and not substantiated in the article - all the true statements in the article are about the hypothetical problem, warning of the bad consequences that would likely happen if makers of major models did something they aren't doing, but they aren't doing that because that is a known issue that they're avoiding. It's like writing an article "Foot shooting epidemic is happening" with a long, solid (and true!) proof that if you'll shoot yourself in the foot, it will indeed cause serious injury...
The Iran war was one of the biggest economic boons Russia could hope for; the disruption of oil and gas exports from Middle East with the associated spike in global prices brought Russian economy back from the dead, as now their exports are so much more valuable.
The root cause of identity theft in USA and some other places is the lack of "proper" national identity and the associated use of various personal "secrets" (not that secret) for identity verification because there are no good easy other ways.
Businesses in Scandinavia and many other countries would not treat someone knowing your personal information as any evidence of identity (because it's not); having all that information is not sufficient to impersonate you there - identity theft does happen but it would require stealing or forging physical documents or actual credentials to things like bank accounts; knowing all of what your mother or spouse would know is not enough to e.g. get credit or get valuable goods in your name.
The US has no single national photo + chip ID card that is available to everybody, for free, including illegal and semi-illegal immigrants and homeless people with no access to their birth certificate and such.
It's completely crazy to me that you can be "out of status" with the USCIS and still get a social security card and a bank account, for example.
It absolutely isn't free here in Norway either, around $86 is what I'd have to pay now to get an id card as an adult (same price as a passport but easier to carry).
The current bills (e.g. NY one at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8102/amendm... ) require age assurance that goes beyond mere assertions, so when creating your (adult) user account it would be required to give away your privacy to prove your age - if you can't implement a way for anonymous/pseudonymous people to verify that they indeed are adults (and not kids claiming to be so), these bills prohibit you to manufacture internet-connected systems that can be used by anonymous/pseudonymous users.
That would be a violation of the copyright law or the GPL licence - you aren't permitted to take GPL code and redistribute it with some extra restrictions added on to it.
If it's not (fully) your code, you aren't free to set the licence conditions; Linus can't do that without getting approval from 100% (not 99% or so) of authors who contributed code.
What one can do is add an informative disclaimer saying "To the best of our knowledge, installing or running this thing in California is prohibited - we permit to do whatever you want with it, but how you'll comply with that law is your business".
You can if you own the copyright to the content. I don't know the state of Linux, but this is a reason the FSF (and many other projects) requires people assign their copyright to them when they submit code.
It also helps when you take an offender to court. If I contribute to a project but don't assign copyright, then they cannot take offenders to court if my code was copied illegally. The burden is on me to do so.
Of course, all code released prior to the change still remains on the original license.
What I'm confused about is how the proposed bills would apply to servers.
Like, in general, a software change to add an "age class" attribute to user accounts and a syscall "what's this attribute for the current user account" would satisfy the California bill and that's a relatively minor change (the bad part is the NY bill that allegedly requires technical verification of whatever the user claimed).
The weird issue is how should that attribute be filled for the 'root' or 'www-data' user of a linux machine I have on the cloud. Or, to put aside open source for that matter, the Administrator account on a Windows Active Directory system.
Because "user accounts" don't necessarily have any mapping (much less a 1-to-1 mapping) to a person; many user accounts are personal but many are not.
We're all going to have to use service accounts created on Windows Server 2003 or RHEL 4, otherwise they won't be old enough and will require manual login from an of-age administrator
The auth server would lie in Colorado. The FS server, in New Mexico. The CPU server, in Nevada. The terminal (the client), in Alaska. Shut down and repeat at random. Watch the lobbies collapsing down tring to sue that monster.
In the CA bill, "User" means child. It's pretty clear that non-human users aren't covered and don't have to participate. E.g. the API can return N/A or any other value for non-humans. If there is a way to make the API applicable only to human children users, then it doesn't even need to be callable for other entities. E.g. on android, each app gets its own uid, so the unix user doesn't correspond to a child, so the API will instead (probably) be associated with another entity (e.g. their Google account, an android profile, or an android (non-unix) user)
Honestly what I hope is that if these bills pass, sysadmins just turn off any server that doesn't have attestation and go off to the beach to collect shells.
The key parameter for swap size is "how memory-hungry things you want to run", which isn't easy to measure, but paying for installed RAM is a somewhat usable proxy metric for that. If you were happy with 8gb, it's some evidence that your apps don't need much memory (and swap), but if you needed to pay for an upgrade to 32gb, that's some evidence that you're the kind of user who needs much more swap than those with 8gb of RAM.
where do you see this goal post moving? From my perspective, it never was "The AIs will never do this." but rather even before day 1 all the experts were explicitly saying that AIs will absolutely do this, that alignment isn't solved or anything close to being solved, so any "ethical guidelines" that we can implement are just a bandaid that will hide some problematic behavior but won't really prevent this even if done to the best of our current ability.
Abstractions are inherently a tradeoff, and too much abstraction hurts you when the assumptions break.
For a major example, treating a network resource like a file is neat and elegant and simple while the network works well, however, once you have unreliable or slow or intermittent connectivity, the abstraction breaks and you have to handle the fact that it's not really like a local file, and your elegant abstraction has to be mangled with all kinds of things so that your apps are able to do that.
reply