| ▲ | andrewla 3 hours ago |
| Pool together with some friends and buy an H200 or two to run unquantized open source models with abliteration/heretic transformations. You need to be able to use these models for the real world and not for some imaginary world where everything is safe and nice and happy all the time, while at the same time intensely surveilled in the name of CYA and the latest panic about whether speech THAT ISN'T EVEN BETWEEN TWO PARTIES is considered "wrong". I'm a free speech fan that acknowledges there are lots of boundaries of free speech (fraud, perjury, blackmail, defamation), but the one thing that all of the boundaries have in common is that a second party must be involved for them to make any sense at all. Maybe the courts will uphold this, maybe they won't, but don't take the risk! |
|
| ▲ | girvo an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s been quite exciting that Qwen 3.8 Flash Next has come out: it really is similar to Opus 4.5, 4.6 for coding. Remarkably intelligent, and runs on a single DGX Spark, which I paid $4000 USD for Sadly they’re now twice that price, which is a shame because I really want a second one! I have a heretic modified version of it too, for when I want to use it for security and so on. Quite interesting |
| |
| ▲ | anon373839 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Same here. I was planning to get a second, just got this one ten seconds before they became unobtanium. Here’s hoping Qwen 4 Flash is the same size! |
|
|
| ▲ | rickette 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gotta find some rich friends in order to buy and host a H200 or two. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Configure0251 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes otherwise thoughts are crimes, effectively. |
| |
| ▲ | fasterik 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree up to a certain point, but there has to be some legal boundary between freedom of thought/speech and literally planning a crime. I'm protected under the First Amendment to say "someday I'll rob a bank" but not necessarily "I'll rob this bank on Friday and here's how I plan to do it". | | |
| ▲ | saulpw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you should be allowed to write that exact line in your journal. If you rob the bank that can be used as evidence against you, but in no way is it acceptable for private reflections alone to be used to arrest you. Or else every author who's written a novel with 'bad' characters would be arrestable. | | |
| ▲ | akoboldfrying 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm coming to saulpw's house tomorrow at noon with a gun, and I'm gonna make them pay. If a policeman notices the sentence above on my phone screen during a routine traffic stop, the response you want him to take is... nothing? | | |
| ▲ | soerxpso an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | For the record, under current US law, it is not illegal to have a sentence in your locally-stored notes on your phone outlining a plan to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act. The police in that instance could inform the intended victim, surveil you, etc, but they would not be able to successfully charge you with attempted murder. It's not illegal to be considering committing a crime, even if you have a tendency to write down your thoughts. The law in this particular case, which seems to be intended for threats that you actually send to someone, is being interpreted broadly to apply to any "threat" that you transmit to a server. So in your hypothetical, the legality would depend on whether your notes are backed up to icloud or not. | | |
| ▲ | wolfy1993 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >the legality would depend on whether your notes are backed up to icloud or not I agree, and it's nuts. This feels like less of an issue with anthropic per say as it is a broad reading/misuse of the law's original intent. | |
| ▲ | openasocket 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is true for the general criminal conspiracy law, but be aware that an “overt act” doesn’t have to be an illegal act, just some action in furtherance of that crime. That can be purchasing a weapon, or scouting out a location. There may also be other laws in play depending on the specifics | |
| ▲ | akoboldfrying an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're absolutely right, at least according to my own quick check on Gemini. I find this state of affairs amazing. In my country, no "overt act" is required, but both here and in the US a "conspiracy to commit" charge requires an agreement with a second party. This is indeed consistent with a very broad interpretation of "no thought crimes". |
| |
| ▲ | devin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Correct. Nevermind how ridiculously contrived the scenario you've just concocted is. | | | |
| ▲ | jrflowers 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If a policeman notices the sentence above on my phone screen during a routine traffic stop, the response you want him to take is... nothing? Anybody showing a cop their hacker news comments at a traffic stop should be arrested, for harassing the police | |
| ▲ | naasking 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you really think reading a snippet like that completely out of context should qualify as probable cause? | | |
| ▲ | akoboldfrying an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes! When you read something describing in detail a person's intent to do something very bad, in a place where they write things that they intend to do, and which in the past they have in fact consistently done, you don't attach any significance to that at all? | | |
| ▲ | rolosa an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | How can you prove that it's not just me writing a dark and morbid story? | |
| ▲ | jrflowers 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does the cop at the traffic stop know that your username is akoboldfrying? Did you tell them? If so, why, at a traffic stop, did you do that? Are you posting threats on hacker news while you are driving? And the cop was close enough to see your username and what you wrote? Is that why you were pulled over? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well in your example you've begun conspiring with a second party so that's not at all the same thing. You are at least free to plan all the crimes you'd like to arbitrary levels of detail in private. It's when you start acting things out (soliciting coconspirators, blackmailing targets, etc) that you cross the legal line. The current situation is a weird one. Anthropic reported single party interactions (per the ToS and common sense), there's a statue about sending threats (as there clearly ought to be), then somehow the definition of the word "send" was tortured by the local police. If a crime has been committed here it's almost certainly an infraction by the local authority against the spirit of the law. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | akoboldfrying an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I totally agree. People seem to be stuck on the notion that we must not punish thought crimes, and have elevated this above all other considerations, when really it's just one among several. However, those other respondents to your post seem to be accurately describing the current legal situation. I asked Gemini, and apparently "conspiring" to commit an offense requires an agreement with another person in both my country and the US, where an "overt act" is also required (that may not be incriminating by itself). I find this alarming. The fact that someone's private diary entry describing in detail a plot to kill me does not amount by itself to anything is... incredible to me. | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You just said the words right here in this public vbenue, not even in private. This argument holds no water at all. | | |
| ▲ | fasterik an hour ago | parent [-] | | Obviously, I'm not talking about the verbatim quotes I provided. There has to be some level of evidence that proves intent to commit a crime and the second quote is meant to represent that whole class of statements, but it depends on context. Any given quote won't constitute evidence in every case, but it will in the cases where it proves intent beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure why you think my argument holds no water when there are clear legal precedents that speech is not protected in some cases where there is "imminent lawless action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio | | |
| ▲ | tikhonj an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like there is a big gap between speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and just saying that you will do something. Depending on context saying "I'm going to rob the bank X tomorrow" might also count as a threat? But, in either case, writing this in a private diary could not be incitement or a threat because you are not communicating with anybody except yourself. |
|
| |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | action in the real world, i.e., not just words. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | layer8 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A middle road is to use open-weight hosting providers, maybe non-US ones if you’re in the US. |
|
| ▲ | macleginn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not even an option in the UK. Communication felonies (dangerous speech, threatening behaviour) only demand potential audience. |
|
| ▲ | Lerc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can trust another party and do this by renting a few H200s. You cannot pool together with some friends without trusting another party. You end up just weighing up the difference in trust between a vendor and a friend against the level of disinterest that they might have in your affairs. |
|
| ▲ | goolz 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Preach! I am so tired of Anthropic’s safety team being the arbiters of what is right and wrong. If you so much as hint at impropriety you can have future sessions flagged ad infinitum when it comes to specific topics. |
|
| ▲ | blmarket an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would be better if your friend is lawyer and take $1/yr(or higher) for the service so that attorney-client privilege can be applied. edit: ah, future crime cannot be protected. |
|
| ▲ | prmoustache 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You don't need an H200 for that kind of use case. A cheap second hand 10ish year old card like my radeon rx570 with 8GB of ram is plenty enough to run a small uncensored model with llama.cpp if all one wants is chitchatting with a clanker. We are not talking about heavy coding use cases here. |
|
| ▲ | xpct 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's definitely something I'd consider if I had cash to spare for H200's! Unfortunately I think for most of us the price of self-hosting has to be 2-5x lower still. |
|
| ▲ | nowittyusername an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Way ahead of you bud, mac studio m5 ultra 256gb version is coming soon.... ordered 2x of em just in case. expensive as fuck but its a hedge against all this bullshit and more |
|
| ▲ | colordrops an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lead time is like a year tho no? |
|
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I agree, but someone will say fake child porn. I'm not saying fake child porn should be allowed or not-allowed, just showing there exist possible exceptions and rationalizations for them even without two parties. |
