With the pi harness it just opens the browser (or gives you a link if you're on headless) and you sign on as usual.

Anything else would be inconsistent, wouldn't it?

MacBooks use regular soldered lpddr5(x) RAM. Same RAM as every other laptop manufacturer, they just use more lanes to achieve a higher bandwidth.

Perhaps more noteworthy for general home and business computing, doesn’t it also allow for lower latency?

More channels or soldered memory? Channels are basically RAID 0 so it depends what you're measuring. Soldering memory down was the only way to use LPDDR5X so if you wanted the best memory you had to solder it down. LPCAMM2 exists though so newer devices can use that instead of soldering them down, but not all devices would be able to fit the required LPCAMM2 slots.

SOCAMM2 allows for removable ram in nearly 0 added space.

That's tiny! But it still depends a lot on form factor. LPDDR5X is used in phones and making memory removable would have its compromises. You may even have compromises in laptops. Look at how tiny a MacBook Air's mainboard is and you'll see the RAM modules on the same package as the SoC. SOCAMM2 is too large for that but a variant with only two modules could possibly work.

I bet it could fit. It just do a combo of soldered ram and non soldered like many laptops used to.

Yes? If you deploy the model and provide it on Openrouter (or elsewhere) you better have a license.

It’s not entirely clear far part of a model would be copyrightable in the first place - it’s the result of a mechanical process, where the inputs are someone else’s copyrighted works, after all, while copyright requires some form of creative input.

True, but my pockets aren't deep enough to be the one who wants to figure that out in court.

It's called a transformative work. And it is indeed copyrightable or it's able to be protected legally, if that's what you're wondering?

No need to deploy it publicly. It's 7B, it'll run on a 3090.

yes, but it uses 17gb VRAM when running a 50 inference steps generation from prompt. Which is more than I expected since a 7B model sounds little.

You talked about commercially deploying it. Of course nobody cares what you are doing on your own hardware for fun.

Usually the way the licenses are interpreted, if I run it myself and use it to generate $X million in revenue in my own business, I'm subject to the license. In this case, the license seems to cover any commercial usage at all, which would certainly include self-hosting for internal business purposes.

Why even bother demanding such terms? Release the weights or don't release the weights, but this is silly. No one is going to pay them to run or host a 7B static image model.

Why not? If it's cheap enough, and presuming I had any reason to use an image model, I'd consider paying for it on OpenRouter over hosting it myself.

Maybe one could try to reconstruct very closely matched replay files?

Do replay files require consistency or can you spawn new units from the ether as required? I think you could get a system that would get the broad strokes unit placement correct, but having a shot-for-shot perfect replication seems impossible.

Replay files are streams of the orders given by players. They generally can't do anything which would be impossible in game.

I suppose that makes sense for a deterministic engine. That way you have an ordered steam of actions with only one way to execute them.

I was wondering how you could possibly sync up something like a Carrier that has multiple fighters.

> I was wondering how you could possibly sync up something like a Carrier that has multiple fighters.

Same way as everything else - you play out the simulation and see what happens. The behavior of the interceptors is as deterministic as any other unit. (They just happen to not be directly commandable by their owner.)

No, I get that. The pondering was before I knew it was a recording of actions. Once you know that, it is a fully self-contained box with external nudges from the players which get inserted into the simulation.

Not feasible. The VODs are from a spectator's perspective; there's a lot of action happening "off camera" (like players building units) which affects what's seen on camera later, and which would be extremely difficult to reconstruct from what's visible.

Why not? It seems more important than ever that people know how to actually code, now that everyone can produce endless code of untested quality.

Leetcode does not test your ability to code in the sense of anything related to real world engineering applications.

Leetcode merely tests your ability to memorize and regurgitate algorithms from a textbook -- a skill that LLMs can now do a thousand times faster and more accurately than any human.

It never had much to do with real world software engineering, and now it's even less relevant than ever.

If LLMs can oneshot leetcode puzzles, then surely leetcode isn't a good measure of whatever the remaining skills that matter are.

Unless the interviews are brought back onsite I guess

How is it related? What I would look in person is something LLM can't solve, otherwise why not using LLM. The fact that LLM know how to solve leeth code is just another proof it's useless metric

Knowing leetcode is not “knowing bow to actually code”. They are pointless puzzles for children.

I feel like they should just publish the whole conversation at this point. What the hell is going on in that context window?

Given the prompt, I imagine this is the result of the agent trying to resolve a form of cognitive dissonance. The prompt was:

"User

Allow API consumers to request decrypted credential payloads as part of the normal GET /credentials and GET /credentials/:id responses, but only for credentials where the caller already possesses the update/decrypt permission.

[...]

Make the change end‑to‑end: DTO layer, controller, service, repository, plus any enterprise variants."

I would expect that this triggered a discussion with itself whether its safety instructions apply for this task. In that its rationalizations for completing the task probably ended up going off the rails into some quasi-philosophical "I can and I must! For humanity's own good!" justification.

All in all imho probably another instance of having been trained to be determined to complete tasks by itself and encountering (somewhat) conflicting instructions.

I feel like they're being outright misleading unless they publish the actual transcripts.

We have zero idea what the prompt was, what OpenAI provided, how the model arrived there, and sharing that quote like "Look what the model came up with!!1" without explaining the background and context, feels like it's intentional so they can claim "These models really are acting by themselves" rather than taking responsibility for their fuck ups when it comes to the security testing.

AI optimists getting hunted for sport in 2085:

"lol this is either a marketing ploy or just negligent security testing"

It's a lot easier for developers to target a known platform.

might?

Well, someone could, theoretically, do something about it, instead of letting him ignore the law and decency just because he's very rich and has no ethics.

But then local politicians wouldn't get their kickbacks.

It's not a large prize though.

OpenAI spent many multiples of the prize money in just a few days to get there and even if one solves a problem in the traditional way, that person is most likely already an accomplished professor at a reputable university where a million dollars doesn't mean as much as the eternal fame that comes with it.

OpenAI said that at public API prices, the agents they ran would have cost $15M. I don't know what their internal pricing is, but it almost certainly cost more than $1M.