This is trivially bypassed by OpenAI asking the user to take control of their computer (or a sandboxed browser within it,) then for all intents and purposes it’s the user themselves accessing your site (with some productivity/accessibility aid from OAI.)
IMO Pandora's box is now open, and it's a matter of time before we see countries around the world offer the same divest-or-ban choice to Meta, Google, etc. The question is who first and how quickly it will happen.
You raise a good point. Let me step back and say that previously it's mostly authoritarian countries doing it and this type of censorship is generally unacceptable in Western societies, that the US is fundamentally different from China in the freedoms they allow.
Today we are shown that the US government can't tolerate a single non-American service becoming mainstream after all. I fear this will become the norm and in a couple years' time, all countries will block all foreign internet services by default, only homegrown apps will exist. Think Canada, France, the UK each having their own versions of Google, Instagram, Reddit, everything.
I don't think that's right. It's specifically about China, an adversary we are teetering on the brink of open conflict with. If ByteDance was a south Korean company, I don't think this would have happened.
The funny thing here is that complying means they never do business in the US anyway. So potentially it is beneficial for Bytedance to still serve US viewers but keep no physical presence in the US, and deal only with non-American advertisers (e.g. US viewer see ads from SHEIN, Aliexpress, Ctrip, etc.) and still profit from this operation. Those companies will pay Bytedance in China, outside US control.
This is pretty much how US internet services operate in the rest of the world: YouTube have no physical presence in, say, Nigeria, but Nigerians watch YouTube just fine. That’s what the internet was all about. We’re connected by default, unless a government actively implements a firewall to stop it.
> Those companies will pay Bytedance in China, outside US control.
Then they are also likely to find themselves banned. Pretty silly to think the US would just throw up its hands and go "oh, you found the loophole, congrats, you win!"
Complying with the ban doesn't just mean that ByteDance can't do business in the US. It means other entities that might have a US presence also can't do business with them without risking being treated the same. I doubt Shein, Ali...etc will want to risk being kicked out of the US market for ByteDance's benefit.
Pretty silly to think the US would just throw up its hands and go "oh, you found the loophole, congrats, you win!"
Agreed. It would be an act or law passed to force ISP's to null route anything to ByteDance networks and if they play whack-a-mole then it would just be a great-wall null route of China.
Yes, this is the point made by the root-level comment: the US would have to build Chinese style Great Firewall to achieve its goal if Bytedance didn't willingly take down their sites.
In my understanding this law in question requires US-based app stores and ISPs to stop hosting for Bytedance. Assuming they comply with this fully, your packets can still reach arbitrary address in China due to the technical nature of the Internet. US would have to examine every outgoing packet and block a lot of organizations' IPs around the world (e.g. a Brazillian CDN that has no presence in the US) to make Tiktok inaccessible.
It's very much a technical problem is the point I was making. Significant portion of Chinese users bypass the ban to access American services. There is a wide spectrum of possible GFW implementations the US can choose from. Anything short of the North Korean one, Tiktok is not going to be completely banned.
Case in point: I saw another commenter managed to access Tiktok by remotely operating a Windows server located in Canada, should their ISP / cloud provider they rented server from / Tiktok Canada be held liable for serving this user? What about users who simply alter their DNS / use socks proxy / VPNs to gain access? The US could develop technology to ban all this, then it would end up exactly the same as China.
The US wouldn't have to do that, they can go after the financial side of the business. They could prosecute or make the lives of any persons involved with these companies very difficult financially. Imagine trying to do business in the US when no credit card processors, banks, or other financial institutions will touch you with a mile-long pole. Now imagine facing that not as a company, but as an individual; How comfortable of a life do you think you'd have as a person living in the US and being unable to access practically any financial institution? And even outside the US, how many companies with a US presence would kick you out to avoid Uncle Sam paying them a visit?
It's only partially a technical problem -- most of the issue lies in the rubber hose.
Intelligence has not been LLM's major limiting factor since GPT4. The original GPT4 reports in late-2022 & 2023 already established that it's well beyond an average human in professional fields: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-.... They failed to outright replaced humans at work not because of lacking intelligence.
We may have progressed from a 99%-accurate chatbot to one that's 99.9%-accurate, and you'd have a hard time telling them apart in normal real world (dumb) applications. A paradigm shift is needed from the current chatbot interface to a long-lived stream of consciousness model (e.g. a brain that constantly reads input and produces thoughts at 10ms refresh rate; remembers events for years and keep the context window from exploding; paired with a cerebellum to drive robot motors, at even higher refresh rates.)
As long as we're stuck at chatbots, LLM's impact on the real world will be very limited, regardless of how intelligent they become.
When doing X becomes cheaper with the invention of new tools, X is now more profitable and humanity tends to do much more of it.
Nearly all code was machine-generated after the invention of compilers. Did the compiler destroy programming? Absolutely not. Compilers and other tools like higher-level programming languages really kickstarted the software industry.
IMO the potential transition from writing programming languages -> writing natural language and have LLM generate the program is still a smaller change than machine code/assembly -> modern programming languages.
If the invention of programming languages expanded the population of programmers from thousands to the 10s of millions, I think LLMs could expand this number again to a billion.
For one thing, Chinese government does have an incentive to enforce good encryption so that foreign adversaries cannot snoop in on important Chinese communications. Only the Chinese government has access via Tencent’s backend.
First off the Dutch are pretty important for a few reasons, their ports and cyber program being the first things that pop into my head. As for Wechat, why wouldn't Chinese officials use it? Even if they didn't use it for official work (which they do, to the best of my knowledge), just about everyone there uses it.
Great stuff! I wonder if it's possible to make it available as a web app? It would be even cooler if no app install is required, just send the link to a receiver via text message.
And when I have larger content that needs to be shared, Signal's "Note to Self" works across platforms also. (It's the only reason I have Signal installed since I don't use it for communications)
How are you running the model? I believe it's a bug from a rushed instruct fine-tuning or in the chat template. The base model can't possibly be this bad.
https://github.com/ollama/ollama/issues/2650
I think with macOS’s design of the dock (resizable, unlike on Windows where the task bar always takes up the whole monitor width,) having one or more windows “full screen” on your desktop feels wrong. There is always some some space left unoccupied to the side of the dock.
Apple has a solution for this which is the green dot that puts your app in a separate space to be truly full screen, and you can split screen between two apps. I guess that’s what Apple would like you to do instead of snapping.
If you hide the dock it works fine to fill the screen without hitting the "full screen" button, unless there is some control at the absolute bottom of the window that you regularly need to access. Putting the dock on the side has always been an option; I've had it autohiding on the right since not long after trying 10.0.
How is using this tool different from manually concatenating (website name + username + secret key), e.g. “reddit$myname$123456”? Since Reddit would hash it anyway, this plaintext string should be as secure as a Pashword.
Concatenating leaks your secret key to the website. If a hacker can add JavaScript to the login page of _any_ site you use, then they can record your plaintext password and log into _every_ site you use. Given the reddit password it's immediately obvious that "facebook$myname$123456" is your facebook password.
The tool uses scrypt to make it hard to figure out the secret key from the generated password.
