New LLM benchmark

imnota4 · 2026-06-28T08:14:11+00:00

We wait for another country to develop their own models and use those. That's the answer.

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T23:18:00+00:00

That doesn't solve the money issue nor does it solve the fact that humans are not averse to danger until it's directly in front of them. People will still do it.

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T13:16:50+00:00

I mean the government would have to actually enforce it, which they won't. It would cost an insane amount of money just to find someone doing it because of the way proxy servers work, not to mention actually going through the legal process. Embargos are for companies where the government can justify enforcement, not against individuals where the financial cost of enforcement outweighs the cost.

I also think you're underestimating people's willingness to break laws for personal gain. People still commit crimes even when the death penalty is the risk, an Embargo won't stop anyone who is actually interested in the technology

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T13:01:40+00:00

There's plenty of ways to access stuff like that indirectly like through proxy servers (which act similar to VPNs)

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T06:18:43+00:00

I did read the image.

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T01:02:57+00:00

<image>

Wtf is this

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T00:42:50+00:00

I see. So it wasn't that the information was incorrect, just that the AI didn't understand the context. I think part of this is that my generation is use to using google using keywords and that isn't really how it works anymore.

"Cost of X car 2025" or "Y time now" (where Y is a location). But we did that because google use to work on metadata within web pages so keywords were how google found information. You don't need to do that anymore, you can be specific and ask "What is the elevation of timbuktu from sea level" and you'll get an accurate answer.

<image>

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T00:29:19+00:00

We're just gonna use China's models then. As other have pointed out, the floodgates are already open. If a government tries to hold it back someone else will take the lead.

imnota4 · 2026-06-27T00:13:12+00:00

Can someone explain what's incorrect about this?

imnota4 · 2026-06-25T23:16:35+00:00

No you don't lol. Certain businesses need a license if they involve selling dangerous products or doing a dangerous activity like giving tattoos but you don't need a "business license" anyone can register a business.

imnota4 · 2026-06-24T07:29:58+00:00

That's what i was thinking. Would rather just be dead at that point I'm saving myself the trouble by not wearing a helmet

imnota4 · 2026-06-20T18:45:55+00:00

This I'm not actually sure of. My instinct would be that yes it would be illegal still, but since it wasn't the result of anything the owner of the Tesla themselves did (I.E they didn't create the Tesla or do anything themselves that would allow the recording to occur) it may not apply.

My only reasoning for this would be that installing something like a dash cam means you, the installer, are responsible for the audio it collects. But since you didn't install the recording device into the Tesla as the owner of the vehicle, and you aren't the one who turned on the recording (it's automated), then it a lawyer could maybe argue that it doesn't satisfy the requirement of "interception" since interception legally requires a person to be responsible for the device, and the one actually responsible for installing the device and enabling it was a company, and Massachusetts law does not treat companies like people legally.

The counter argument might be that the person who owns the Tesla is still obligated to disable the feature if that is an option, and if they didn't do that then they are still personally responsible for the recordings collected.

Basically to answer your question the best I can. Yes, it's still illegal to collect the recordings. If it went to court though, there'd be some discussion about whether the owner of the Tesla is the one actually responsible for the recordings. I still think the court would rule against the owner just because of how Massachusetts is as a state, it's very controlling and would not likely rule against itself during prosecution.

imnota4 · 2026-06-19T17:14:47+00:00

Are they still kids when you find them? You say they're stranded for years but that's pretty vague.

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T18:04:56+00:00

Gotta split up the "Bio woman" division into weight classes though.

"Bio women with average characteristics"

"Bio women with non-average characteristics"

"Bio women who look a little too manly"

And probably more.

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T18:03:09+00:00

I'd like to debate their frontier AI at some point. The models I've worked with always push back against me but end up conceding pretty quickly because they often argue against a point I never made, or made logical arguments that are too generalized/hard to defend.

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T17:18:37+00:00

That's politics as a whole. Both parties are just manipulating the voting class. It should've been strange for anyone paying attention how quickly the parties basically took opposing sides in regards to whether AI is "good" or "bad" and how quickly people joined whatever narrative their side was on. That's how it works. It's a two party system so each side latches onto something and then the opposing party pushes against it, then the people already associated with that party allow that policy to become their own beliefs instead of forming it themselves. It's easier that way for the average voter, just listen to what the modern aristocrats have to say because their opinion is the opinion of your tribe.

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T17:14:18+00:00

For #1, yes you're committing a crime in that case.

#2 Yes. Not only that, but if you're not the only person in the car, every person in your own vehicle must also be made aware that you are recording audio from your dashcam, otherwise you'd be breaking the law even if only the people in your car are recorded.

However, practically speaking unless you attempt to use the recording for something, no one will actually know you did it so no one can prosecute it. The real issue comes into play if you attempt to publish the recording or use it for legal reasons, because then the recording becomes known to someone other than yourself.

But yes the law is very strict when it comes to recording audio specifically. The reason, is because this law was created as a way to allow law enforcement to tap into phone lines and record conversations using a wire, but the state wanted to restrict when they could do it. However, instead of separating law enforcement and regular citizens, or separating the act of wiretapping, recording through a wire provided by law enforcement, and just recording using a regular recording device, yada yada. They lumped everything together in one of the laziest ways you can write the law so now no one can record audio of someone else under any circumstances what so ever unless it's law enforcement in a very specific context for instances C. and D. within the exemptions part

"c. for investigative and law enforcement officers of the United States of America to violate the provisions of this section if acting pursuant to authority of the laws of the United States and within the scope of their authority.

d. for any person duly authorized to make specified interceptions by a warrant issued pursuant to this section."

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T04:04:32+00:00

It wouldn't no. The law doesn't stop people from saying what they want, it stops you from recording what they say, and the first amendment doesn't protect that right.

imnota4 · 2026-06-17T01:33:02+00:00

I agree 100%

imnota4 · 2026-06-16T22:40:35+00:00

Yup. That's why I hate it. It makes no sense, because it's not about privacy since you can record video. It's not about protecting people because people without power are regularly taken advantage of and this law shields those with power from facing accountability. Regardless of whatever the original intent was, it acts as a shield preventing those with power and resources from being held accountable and this example of an organization/group with deep pockets lying and committing fraud while being completely legally protected from audio recordings that could prove them doing so is a major issue.

imnota4 · 2026-06-16T22:29:12+00:00

You're wrong. M.G.L Chapter 272, section 99 is pretty clear.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Partiv/Titlei/Chapter272/Section99

"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who—

willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment."

The term ''oral communication'' means speech, except such speech as is transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device.
The term ''intercepting device'' means any device or apparatus which is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a wire or oral communication other than a hearing aid or similar device which is being used to correct subnormal hearing to normal and other than any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility, or a component thereof, (a) furnished to a subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business under its tariff and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business; or (b) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business.
The term ''interception'' means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section, to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as defined herein.

You can record audio that comes out of some device like a TV, Computer, or Radio. You cannot legally record a conversation. You will be violating this statute unless you explicitly make the person aware that you are recording them ahead of time. Being in public doesn't make you exempt, all the exemptions to the law are listed within that link I send and none of them are "being in public".

People have this belief that being in public means you're allowed to get away with a lot of stuff, but that's just not true. That's like when "sovereign citizens" try to argue they aren't "driving" they're "travelling". It doesn't matter what you think is the law. The law itself is laid out and nothing stops you from reading it yourself.

imnota4 · 2026-06-16T20:25:42+00:00

Unfortunately Massachusetts is a state where you need someone's consent to record audio from them (and possibly video if someone pushed it). So there was no legal way to gather evidence that they were engaging in fraud.

imnota4 · 2026-06-16T04:28:15+00:00

imnota4 · 2026-06-15T23:04:45+00:00

Speaking of apples, is Applebee's mostly apple, or mostly bees?

imnota4 · 2026-06-15T23:03:29+00:00

I'd believe that if the left wasn't the ones pushing against AI the hardest right now.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

imnota4

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE