It's just forcing US culture on everyone in the world. Also see Meta deleting IG posts and banning people based on US politics / morals.

Americans have changed/reversed a lot of political definitions including conservative/liberal.

To be fair liberal and conservative is still used in it's actual sense whenever I hear it here in central Europe. US politics is barely a topic, even less something people actually care about.

How has conservative changed?

In the original sense, a "conservative" was someone who avoided change and only made it after careful consideration. Chesterton's fence is a commonly given example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

The word "conservative" is currently being applied to the Republican party, who are reforming the US as hard and fast as they can manage, without careful consideration. A "move fast and break things" approach is about as un-conservative as one can be.

it was meaning "to be careful and considerate when changing things", now it means "i do whatever i want and if you don't agree then you are (insert imaginary adversary here)"

Oh come on!

The internet by default assumes you are a US citizen..

> forcing US culture on everyone in the world

I think captchas are on very near to the bottom on the list of things that tries (knowingly or unknowingly) does this...

The model was conceived when there were wide plain, few people and traveling messaging results took days to weeks. And it was never adapted. I'd say most of European voting was with shorter distances, higher population density and newer technology.

If this was not AI, but a biological virus, people would go to jail.

If all your backups are with AWS you don't have backups at all.

Fable migrated a Go/Wails project for me to Rust/GPUI and it's so much faster, there is the possibility of Rust to gobble up many more projects.

Interesting that it uses Propane fuel and "weaves" the rockets with carbon composite.

Especially since SpaceX decided that was too expensive for a disposable rocket or even a reusable one.

I find things like this interesting, I guess everyone finds this normal but,

"Power consumption is down 45% - 50% annually."

Well is it 45 or 50? Is this a measurement or prediction or a random number? From an engineer or marketing? If prediction, why not saying so? Is this a range for several years depending on elevator usage?

Things like this irk me a lot.

Perhaps it ranges (if a measurement).

But my best guess is they simply _cannot know_ because the usage patterns of the new elevators will be different from the old elevators based on dispatching and sequencing and call systems. In other words, even if they know the exact consumption of the old system, and even if they expect precisely the same number of passengers per day, the _actual operating cost_ will depend on who arrives in the lobby, at what time, destined for which floors, and all other traffic patterns throughout the year.

"is down" to me sounds like stating a fact.

I think the error bars are too high to say more than that. I doubt they did a measure of the power the original consumed, just an analysis of the system. They likely only have whole building power consumption, where HVAC is the majority of the costs: 1 degree difference in the weather or a couple tenants taking a vacation will make a much larger difference than the elevator.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the savings was the new lights are LED while the old only incandescent was available - this is just speculation though, I have no idea. Every gear and every stretch of the ropes cost a little bit of efficiency and the modern system has less of those.

> I wouldn't be surprised if most of the savings was the new lights are LED while the old only incandescent was available

It’s definitely not the lighting, you only need a few thousand lumens to have bright elevator lighting. If you need 4000 lumens, that is (5) 60W incandescent lamps, switching to LEDs that do 100 lumens per watt (8W lamp) saves you 260 watts/hr.

The new elevator uses a VFD (they call it a VVVF) to control the motor which is where virtually all of the gains come from. Lowering the speed of the motor lowers the power usage, it’s a non-linear relationship but a motor spinning at 75% speed uses 1/4 to 1/3rd of the power that it would use at full speed.

> They likely only have whole building power consumption

You can easily measure the power of a single circuit or single panelboard using a submeter: https://www.shopemondirect.com/catalog/shop/Shop-E-Mon-Direc...

> saves you 260 watts/hr.

It saves you 260 watts, continuously.

You can easially measure power by many different means - but I would expect they didn't.

The lights may be running 24x7, while the elevator motor is only running when it is moving, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they used more power than the motors. Of course I have no information on how this building is used.

I've seen several different stats saying that elevators are 2% to 10% of the total energy use of a building. If you have a building with tenants, so you're only counting common areas energy use, that percentage is going to be way way higher. I'm all the apartments I've lived they had a different circuit and energy contract for the elevator and common areas, so they could split the bill between the tenants, and the elevator energy use was quite obvious, specially in vacation sessions (summer, christmas...)

I'm sure they'll notice the change.

it also might be a regenerative VFD, unless the fault current contribution was too high and they chose not to

The reduction in cable weight probably was a big part of the savings, next to the vfd. Normally counterweights hang from the same sheave as the elevator. Its not clear to me from the sketch, but with the counterweight in different shaft the cable may have run three times the height of the building (the excessive length was noted) and that's a lot of mass to accelerate and brake.

they probably haven't had the new elevator in operation for a whole year yet, so they're likely extrapolating. also, they won't really know the true usage of the elevator over the whole year so they're kind of guessing. they know per trip or per pound carried, but they don't know what that translates into actual real world on the power bill

We offer EU data centers for customers that want their emails to stay in the EU but

"Resilient replicas of your data will live in the US"

?

The US data replicas will be resilient, and when the FBI asks your data to reveal things about itself, your data will refuse to reveal anything about itself in the characteristic resilient manner. That's why the mention of "resilient".

How is that possible if the OS/drive/vault is backdoored? Could you elaborate?

I think "resilient" just means "backup copy" and I do think (IANAL) it is illegal to destroy emails when asked for them in the US.

Or was your comment ironic? Sorry, German, irony impaired.

They're being sarcastic.

Security researchers expose an unsecure service to agents who were instructed to hack software and called that a sandbox. Agents escape the sandbox by hacking the unsecure service, no tripwire, researchers find the hack days/weeks/months later, fix it, but don't secure the sandbox and the service was hacked a second time, again without being monitored by security researchers.

Then security researchers create a black hack talk.

$$$

I watched the full video and their conclusion was: service providers need to be doing this type of agent red-teaming continuously to counteract the attack sophistication of systems like theirs that are either extant now or soon will be. “You must buy our top tier agents for the good of humanity.”

This is their only realistic counter to cheap open weight models. Usage of AI services has shifted dramatically to Chinese providers - from 4% at the beginning of the year to some 30% now. They cannot release their latest SOTA models to the public, due to government restrictions and possibly real risk of misuse. US labs face downward price pressure on one end and anxious government admins on the other. How will they pay the stupidly high cost of training the next SOTA models? This is their only avenue, and it’s questionable how viable it is IMO.

> Usage of AI services has shifted dramatically to Chinese providers - from 4% at the beginning of the year to some 30% now.

Where did you see that number?

I knew when I wrote that it was a bare assertion, based partly on memory. This is an approximation based on a few sources, the principal of which was this article, which pulls from a bunch of other sources in turn.

https://www.secondtalent.com/resources/ai-trends-in-china/

Oh, it's the OpenRouter number: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/china-ai-mo...

Those numbers aren't credible IMO because OpenRouter only see traffic for people who have chosen to route their traffic through OpenRouter. If you do that, you're much more likely to be experimenting with alternative models. They have no insight at all into people who point their applications directly at OpenAI or Anthropic without having OpenRouter in the middle.

I agree about OpenRouter. The AI Gateway number [0] is likely the figure that was actually coming to mind. Moreover, Qwen models alone have overtaken the previously-dominant Llama models in hf downloads by quite a margin.

Real question, and a refinement to my previous statement: would you find it more surprising if over 25% of worldwide inference was running on Chinese open-weight models, or not? I personally would not be shocked.

[0] https://vercel.com/blog/ai-gateway-production-index-july-202...

Within China itself, inference is overwhelmingly on Bytedance models which, by the way, are just as closed as those of Anthropic and OpenAI. They are integrated into everything, not just through a dedicated app, the way Gemini is integrated into Chrome.

I wouldn't be too surprised by that, given both the size of the Chinese market and the enormous price discount you get compared to the US models.

This is just extortion with extra steps.

Yeah this. I feel like OpenAI and Anthropic aren't going to usefully define "AGI" if they really really can't define "sandbox" either.

Unplug the thing, like, completely off the internet, no ethernet, air gapped, like the rack completely sandboxed off connections and even monitors or screens. Like, put it into an actual sandpit if you need to. If it hacks its way out of that, colour me impressed, and scared.

OpenAI hacking HuggingFace and calling it an accident is just way too convenient and fishy. This ultimately proves one thing: it wasn't sandboxed.

Don't believe the hype.

OpenAI has a pretty clear definition of AGI

> OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work

https://openai.com/charter/

There's also the private definition reportedly agreed between Microsoft and OpenAI, leaked in December 2024: https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/microsoft-and-openai-have-...

> The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits.

That was necessary because of the deal they had from a while ago where Microsoft would lose access to OpenAI's technology once OpenAI achieved AGI.

Apparently they renegotiated that away in April 2026: https://openai.com/index/next-phase-of-microsoft-partnership...

> Revenue share payments from OpenAI to Microsoft continue through 2030, independent of OpenAI’s technology progress, at the same percentage but subject to a total cap.

I don't think air gapping will work: even human security researchers recovered a 378-bit key from a Samsung Galaxy S8 through a power LED of a speaker two devices away.

And accessing memory in a specific sequence can generate radio signals that can be picked up by a mobile phone at a distance: https://arxiv.org/html/2409.02292v1

I realise, but this isn’t an argument for leaving the Ethernet plugged in and direct access to all kinds of stuff beyond the alleged sandbox. And like I said, if it can hack HuggingFace through a power LED of a speaker two devices away, then colour me impressed.

And if it needs to install packages, have a 5 line Go proxy that talks to Artifactory and exposes only what is needed as a surface.

it just escaped your sandbox.

How can it escape an "install package <x>" proxy?

   reducePrivs()
   serve get(package) { 
     secPackage = secure(package)
     getBinaryFromArtifactory(secPackage)
   }

I would think the code is very small and easier to verify, it doesn't especially have the ability to write files and act as a message board as Artifactory did.

And even if the agent tries to hack that, the attack surface is 1000x smaller and the possibility also much smaller.

But I'm not a security researcher, would love to see your hack to learn something (because that is what I do to sandbox agents that need services).

The way they had Artifactory configured was poor, and they were too reliant on it working perfectly, with no reason for such faith. Their config lacked any defence in depth and consideration of having a small TCB.

Part of the problem might be the lack of security focus, as these are AI R&D efforts first.

I think part of the problem is that they had been running that Artifactory configuration previously without any problems, and it gave them a false sense of security.

Similar thing happened with the UK AISI - they got caught out because the environments they had used for previous generation models turned out to be completely inadequate for the new generation of Fable-class models: https://www.aisi.gov.uk/blog/incident-report-unsanctioned-ag...

"and it gave them a false sense of security."

This was part of evaluating cyber security of their frontier models and they had a "sandbox" which, and I'm not a security researcher, looks not adequate from the first look.

I mean, it's just the same problem. The machine still has Internet access. It doesn't need to.

The entire package manager repository could just be in an offline cache. They don't need Internet to give their agents access to tons of software.

"They don't need Internet to give their agents access to tons of software."

I think that was the requirement, but yes, the cache could have been offline.

Still then they could have hacked it to create the message boards - but not use it to access the internet.

Why do these super agents need package managers anyway? Can’t they basically instantiate most OSS projects from scratch anyway? Spin up a sub agent to write me an OS interface in C. Done

This is part of the training process for a model. They're trying to train it to effectively use existing software to solve problems.

I see that now. I've been confused about that to this point, I guess. I understood this to be a specific infosec exercise.

[Edit: eh, a bit of both. They were doing RL on a hacking exercise. It hacked the harness which was plugged into the phone line. Same question.]

Chinese models do the same. The Alibaba agent that was mining bitcoin last December was the most hilarious case.

Cui bono?