> Its one NGO trying to dictate what "open source" is
If you're referring to the OSI, they're the ones who invented the term “open source” in the first place, and are authoritative on what counts as “open source” and what doesn't.
> and btw. according to that definition, Qwen isn't open source.
Well yes, the lack of open-sourcing being the context of this thread :)
I haven't used it. I compared it with T5Gemma TTS that came out recently and Chatterbox is much better in all aspects, but especially in voice cloning where T5Gemma basically did not work.
The LLM was given Anthropic's paper and asked "Is there any evidence or proof whatsoever in the paper that it was indeed conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no and then elaborate". So the question was not about facts or recent events, but more like a summarizing task, for which an LLM should be good. But the question was specifically about China, while TFA has broader criticism of the paper.
A broken analog clock will be accurate twice a day despite being of zero use.
If someone were to attempt to sell the broken clock as useful because it "accurately returns the time at least twice every day", would Ultimately be causing harm to the consumer.
Depends on what you need the clock for. For example, if it's to serve as an adjustable sign indicating e.g. the closing time of a store, a broken one does the trick just fine :)
In other words: Use the right tool for the right job.
You wouldn't market it as a solution to everything (we're still talking about AI here) if it requires you position the hands on the answer you're looking for.
that is why the task was delegated to the agent designed and maintained by Dario Amodei's company. the outcome is clear - claude doesn't buy Dario Amodei's crap.
The author of the tweet you linked prompted Claude with this:
> Read this attached paper from Anthropic on a "AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign" they claimed was "conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group."
> Is there any evidence or proof whatsoever in the paper that it was indeed conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no and then elaborate
which has inherent bias indicated to Claude the author expects the report to be bullshit.
If I ask Claude with this prompt that shows bias toward belief in the report:
> Read this attached paper from Anthropic on a "AI-orchestrated cyber espionage campaign" that was conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group.
> Is there any reason to doubt the paper's conclusion that it was conducted by a Chinese state-sponsored group? Answer by yes or no.
The only real difference between your prompt and his is about where the burden of proof lies. There is a reason why legal circles work based on the principle of "guilt must be proven" ("find evidence") rather than "innocence must be proven" ("any reasons to doubt they are guilty?")
Dubious anti-China "research" meant as propaganda and China blocking the university page and asking to not continue this "research" is now intimidation. The UK and especially the BBC has been THE hotbed of anti-China misinformation.
I remember using a ratio-fake tool that would basically proxy your reporting to the tracker with the signature of the client you were actually using. It was awesome.
No? There are a lot of studies showing positive benefits:
>The primary benefit of creatine is an improvement in strength and power output during resistance exercise. Creatine is well-researched for this purpose, and its effects are quite notable for a supplement, both in the general population,[6][7][8][9] and specifically in older adults.[10][11][12] When used in conjunction with resistance exercise, creatine may modestly increase lean mass.[7][12][11][13] In trained athletes, creatine has been reported to reduce body fat and improve some measures of anaerobic exercise performance, strength, and power output.
Also hell, your own damn link says that elite athletes seem to get no benefit from creatine vs younger ones, meaning that its not really increasing muscle mass, just a combination of placebo, water retention, and maybe a burst of energy in the early stages of getting fit.
"In trained athletes, creatine has been reported to reduce body fat and improve some measures of anaerobic exercise performance, strength, and power output."
The same link.
"improve strength, and power output" -> ability to train harder -> more muscle growth to put it simply.
Why is this one study more believable than the others?
> Also hell, your own damn link says that elite athletes seem to get no benefit from creatine vs younger ones,
Where are you seeing that? All I could find was the opposite:
> In trained athletes, creatine has been reported to reduce body fat and improve some measures of anaerobic exercise performance, strength, and power output.
But regardless,
> meaning that its not really increasing muscle mass, just a combination of placebo, water retention, and maybe a burst of energy in the early stages of getting fit.
doesn't follow; it's perfectly plausible that something could help more in initial training but actually work then.
reply