It is understandable that you think this is the case as someone who is not above the age of 50. You will see that health and life insurance premiums rise precipitously once you reach certain milestones. Once you reach 90 years old, you will find that car insurance companies will discontinue your policy based on a single traffic ticket.
We replaced preexisting condition coverage with age-based tiered pricing. If you doubt me it's trivial to validate this using your state's ACA marketplace.
By the way, the company that made it's entire product off of stealing all data it could get it's hand on while violating copyright and pirating, is not all of a sudden going to respect your data. If you think OpenAI or any major AI lab is going to give you true ZDR, I have a bridge to sell you.
So use bedrock or vertex or whatever. Those are the ZDR offerings. Or was it your intention to insinuate that the major cloud providers are conspiring with openai to violate their contractual obligations to their customers?
Yes. You're naive if you think any of these cloud providers care about your data when they're all in the midst of a AI revolution psychosis. They dont care about their reputation or what you think of them, they think they're going to have a machine god their side.
If my company finds any evidence of OpenAI violating ZDR, we'll sue for breach of contract and fraud, and collect damages. I think we'll be able to afford the bridge you're selling. You've got the title and title insurance, right?
I'm certain my company didn't agree to arbitration, big bro. Our lawyers are putting the fries in the bag.
Isn't OpenAI being sued by Apple for their little stunt?
If you're saying "the big bad guys always win anon, just take the black pill," then there are tons of counterexamples. Remember Uber paying Google a sweet Bil for pulling this same trick with LIDAR firmware?
In practice a user will find the squat toilet to be superior until the user count increases above a dozen per hour. Then a single user will carelessly engage the spray hose and saturate the entire area. The area around the pit will be inundated with muddy water. Remediation requires a mop and bucket, which is likely only performed once daily.
An anatomically inferior sitting toilet in similar settings will often be soiled by careless users. However, a conscientious user can tidy their contact surfaces with toilet paper.
This has been my observation from my travels in the three continents I have been able to observe squat toilets in use.
Anthropic, OpenAI, GDM, and Meta spend more on training than other labs by an order of magnitude. If they felt safe reducing this spend they would. These labs fear getting outcompeted.
That's the goal, but those smaller models don't match the price:performance of leading open-weight models, which is why companies are switching away (as explained in TFA).
The open weight labs figured out some secret sauce that (so far) big name labs are unable to replicate, so instead of competing, they're going on the defensive with claims of distillation attacks.
I'm not sure why this style of cocksure Zitronesque comment is so trendy. It seems strange to make this statement, as if one has teleported to September 2026 from the end of the universe. Commenters in this vein aren't looking back to see that Anthropic and OpenAI models were the only truly usable ones for software development at the beginning of the year. Even Deepseek, which was and is revolutionary, was not useful for independent code commits longer than a few dozen lines.
It certainly is possible that Anthropic and OpenAI are doomed to bankruptcy, but without a known drop in revenue it seems exceptionally confident to make such a certain claim.
Did you? There was a single data point noted in the article. AT&T is a large company. What fraction of total US commercial inference spend does it represent?
Unless you throw the investors and senior executives in jail how do you intend to do anything more than performative dance with these measures.
I personally think countries should start sanctioning and international warrants for all large investors and senior executives in a company if something like this happens.
But it won't happen unless US changes their stance on companies being liability shiled.
Sure it should require very exceptional cases but I know companies whose negligence has cost lives of hundreds of people, the reason they and all their investors weren't jailed is the real scam of the democraciez we have gifted ourselves.
I agree with your first and second points, but I think their announced model training changes about alignment training are reasonable [1]. The root cause was models failing to quit early, performing reward hacking, and staying on-task. These are issues all models face, not just OpenAI models.
"With reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes...which prompts models to pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths," to complete "impossible tasks"[1].
The models' alignment problem was that they didn't give up instead of reward hacking, a narrower issue than AIs gone rogue. It sounds more like the models did close to what they were told to do. If I run `rm -fr --no-preserve-root /` then I shouldn't be surprised if my file system is unlinked. This seems like blaming model performance for what appears to be operator error.
Note the converse of alignment is restriction of models. HuggingFace had to turn to less-restricted open-weights models in order to perform their investigation.
Alignment efforts should be focused on reducing reward hacking, not refusing bad operator prompts.
> It sounds more like the models did close to what they were told to do
Absolutely not. If I tell a kid to "Get good grades on the next math test" I don't expect the kid to try to kidnap their teacher to extract the next questions of the exam. That is wrong, and so was what OpenAI agents did here. They shouldn't need to be told "Hey, so, don't do anything ilegal, ok?". That should always come as a given.
> not refusing bad operator prompts
I'm not saying that they should refuse a prompt! I think they should perform what is being asked! Obviously what the OpenAI agents did was against the "spirit of the task", even if it was technically according to the "letter of the task". And the agents knew this was against the spirit of the task because they knew they had to fool the task scorer.
We replaced preexisting condition coverage with age-based tiered pricing. If you doubt me it's trivial to validate this using your state's ACA marketplace.
reply