> These checks cause Claude to _visibly_ fallback from Opus 5 to Opus 4.8 [...] You'll see a notice explaining that the model switched, and the response will be labeled with the model that answered.
So who is right? I know for Fable I am visibly told, is this tweet trying to say it is silent against what Anthropic is saying?
All stay under because I had Claude build the workflow to respect it (text encoding, denoising, vae, etc), there's just a tiny bit of untracked pieces. While there are common interfaces to invoke them (CLI and API/webpage) and they share ops and some pieces, lots of model logic is unique. This is all vibe coded and surely has inaccuracies.
Basically I kept needing an inference engine that could stream weights in and out as needed in an LRU manner. So I ended up vibe coding this thing that accepts a `--vram-budget` and stays under it (mostly). It turns out moving mmap'd bytes in and out of VRAM is way cheap compared to compute. Coupled with some pipelining/double-buffering, I almost always end up compute bound not memory bound. Granted I use way smaller models heh.
And people that don't run red lights and suffer selective enforcement and are used for arbitrary surveillance and so on and so on. Don't let your naive view of what you want these things and their handlers to do distract you from reality, regardless of the brand or intent of widely deployed cameras.
> Because we can’t differentiate between a legitimate sign in and a MITM attack on these platforms, we will be blocking sign-ins from embedded browser frameworks starting in June
Granted this was years ago, maybe the situation improved? I had to abandon my CEF project because of this.
Emphasis mine. This is the exact mindset I'm referring to, and when applied generally to files in the repo, will bite at some point. Even if you're lucky and it's unimportant/internal enough not to bite users, it will bite contributors. Luckily none of us would be discourteous enough to do this while contributing to another's repo.
This mindset is how you get lots of IDE/dev-env-specific/platform-specific cruft inside of repos instead of pristine repos. It makes both contribution and maintenance difficult over time. While less of an extreme issue as IDE/dev-env-specific/platform-specific hacks/scripts littering the repo, gitignore entries should be generally justifiable, not ever-growing cruft to be added by each developer specific to their situation.
> Only individual, non-commercial, non-bulk use of the Materials is permitted
Unsure if this falls within. I have written my own scripts against the XML regularly updated there, but am unsure if they allow it to be used on a shared site.
And now working on an inference engine specifically geared to low mem situations. Both basically vibe coded. Not broadcasting either project widely as they remain unstable, unpolished side projects.
I've worked around lower RAM machines with ONNX web models by first separating .onnx from .onnx_data, and second having scripts that split up the "layers" and shards the run (e.g. https://huggingface.co/cretz/Z-Image-Turbo-ONNX-sharded). Then you can have the runtime only run one at a time. I don't understand the details too deep, but Claude is good at writing scripts to shard onnx protos.
Nice, I've also been doing some similarly neat things via ONNX web at https://intabai.dev (caution, just PoC tools atm, only Chrome tested, only some mobile devices work, no filters).
I think all-client-side in-browser AI imagery is becoming very doable and has lots of privacy benefits. However ONNX web leaves a lot to be desired (I had to proto patch many pytorch conversions because things like Conv3D ops had webgpu issues IIRC). I have yet to try Apache TVM webgpu approaches or any others, but I feel if the webgpu space were more invested in, running these models would be even more feasible.
> I don't think that "computing freedom" means you get to use other people's computers without consent
Consent from whom? Consent is already required, why are you discussing this as though consent is not required? Why are you stating it as if people are using other's computers without consent? Right now when I sideload an APK on _my device_, I have to explicitly consent to allowing it to install. And I do not require the author of that APK to have made any deals/interactions with Google. What you mean is Google's consent or a debugger's consent or my consent tomorrow.
So I, as the user, will no longer be able to provide consent alone. I wish that you were right and it was just "no running without consent", but that is today's behavior, and that is being altered.
> I think a good compromise is that they could permit you to sideload. Which they are doing.
They always have, and that was a good compromise. They've now decided you can't sideload until tomorrow unless you break out debugging tools or require the author make special deals with a specific vendor. What exists today is a good compromise, the change is not.
I expect the same from my desktop and mobile devices here.
Doing a 24h wait _is_ much different from what happens today. That's the whole point. If my two options to run an application of my choosing are to use ADB to flip a switch or to wait a day, that is ridiculous.
I am only slightly comforted by the fact that desktop computing had set (some) self-ownership precedence before the current restrictive computing hegemony took control, though even that is eroding.
I can't see where one can opt-out of this new behavior and into the existing behavior, only a description of the new behavior's bypass (which is not the same thing at all)
> easy to bypass the cooling-off period with ADB
I don't think this is a reasonable use of the term "easy". I should be able to give my non-technical friend an apk and they can use it right then, with the one "are you very sure" screen.