Is it possible for you to add color theme/icon theme/keymap only extensions, without any executable code? I think, it will improve the security situation a bit. I don't see why the mentioned kinds of extensions should have any code.
You could have a rich mathematical knowledge, while being not very good at proving theorems. Also, you might be good at proving competitive mathematics problems without having a rich mathematical knowledge. It's also possible to have rich mathematical knowledge, and being good at proving theorems but mostly in the field of your expertise.
"Those destinations, which are listed in paragraph (a) to Supplement No. 5 to Part 740, are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For these destinations, this IFR makes minimal changes: companies in these destinations generally will be able to obtain the most advanced ICs without a license as long as they certify compliance with specific requirements provided in § 740.27." [0]
France seems clearly exempt from most of the requirements. The main requirement of 740.27 is to sign a license under U.S. law, under which customers are prohibited from re-exporting ICs to non-Third 1 countries without U.S. approval.
What's more, the text refers to AIs, which can have dual uses. The concept of dual civil-military use concerns a large number of technologies, and dates back to the first nuclear technologies.
The text gives a few examples of dual-use models, such as models that simulate or facilitate the production of chemical compounds that could be used for chemical weapon creation, non conventional weapon creation or that could simplify or replace already identified dual-use goods or technologies.
These uses are already covered by existing legislation on dual-use goods, and US export control. The American legislator is therefore potentially thinking of other uses, such as satellite and radar image analysis, and electronic warfare.
As France is a nuclear-armed country with its own version of thoses technologies, it makes little sense to place it under embargo.
But France isn't going to like being obliged once again to be forced to apply American law and regulation on its soil.
As a European, I hope that alternatives to American dependence will soon appear.
Export restrictions on US models seem like a boon for French Mistral, not a problem.
Even if for now France is strong-armed into applying the same restrictions, they will be in a much better position than US companies if US-Europe relations deteriorate. Something that's not entirely unlikely under Trump. We are a week into his presidency and France is already talking about deploying troops to Greenland
In the case of Mistral, the restrictions on exporting the model would not apply, since the model is produced in France. What's more, Mistral won't be much help in producing deadly gases or uranium enrichment facilities. It is therefore not subject to this legislation for these two reasons.
On the other hand, ICs could be subject to restrictions, and France has no alternative for sourcing large-capacity ICs.
The USA could use dollar-denominated transactions to broaden the scope of the text. It's not insurmountable, but it will complicate matters.
Actually, Mistral by virtue of not aligning/safety lobotomizing their models will indeed trivially "help in producing deadly gases or uranium enrichment facilities!"
Thanks for the feedback! I haven't tried to do this yet, but it's built on Tauri 2.0 and it looks not too hard (https://tauri.app/distribute/app-store/). Will take a look at this
Because they're big enough so they can afford not to, and they want to do things that the sandbox/review process/monetisation rules wouldn't let them. I assume the sandbox is exactly why parent wants the app to be there
I would have thought the exact opposite to your statement, they are big enough that they should afford it. Seems like the ability to forgo the app store on mac allows apple to get away with stuff like high friction review process and monetization rules. Without the big players pushing back, why would they change?
Doesn't apple charge app store apps 30% all their transactions/subscriptions? What company in their right mind would want to opt into that if they don't have to?
A smaller to a medium sized company. Due to several reasons:
- Setting up payment with a third party provider isn't that simple, and their fees are far from zero.
- Getting users. Popular queries in Google are full of existing results, and getting into there isn't easy and isn't cheap. Also, search engines aren't the most popular way to get apps to your devices, usually people search directly in app stores. Apple takes care of it, i.e. I guess that popular app with good ratings get to higher position in search results.
- Trust. I install apps on the computer without Apple only if I trust the supplier of the software (or have to have it there). Apple solves it with their sandboxing.
Yep, 30% are a lot, but for these kinds of businesses it might be well worth it (especially with reduced commission of 15% for smaller revenue).
I am aware of a few orgs that license interesting software R&D often with engineering support, sometimes with an equity component. Another variant is the R&D holding company that creates separate companies to commercially exploit the R&D in different parts of the public or private sector. Most such R&D orgs are very low-profile, they usually don't have an internet presence. Many use few or no patents these days, those economics don't make sense unless the business is largely owned by lawyers, which creates a different kind of company (much closer to patent trolls).
It is a bespoke kind of business, tailored to the specific technology and investment network of the people involved.
Drag (air friction) is proportional to the square of velocity. If you know aerodynamic properties of iphone, you could find a value of velocity where drag is equal to gravitational force, at which point the speed doesn't change. You could use it as an approximation of the speed at which iphone hits the ground.
Eh, I could see this but I think having well-structured data will still be useful for both cutting down on 'prompt clutter' and giving it a better chance to come up with something useful.
It might get better in later versions but even so, I think passing well-structured data will always result in cleaner output than passing it data with lots of noise.
If we are going to work alongside AGIs, we should consider them equal to humans and by that I mean, passing them good data rather than assuming they'll figure out what we meant. Obviously it won't be _as_ big of an issue or requirement but if you can put into such a format, why wouldn't you?
reply