Hey gamers. I'm planning on hosting a website with some copyrighted content on it (mostly just archiving a bunch of art). What web hosting services do people here like to use? Ideally one that won't give a fuck that I host copyrighted content. I looked at Ultahost a bit and they seem fine but users seem to say it sucks.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8207089

Jan-nano is a model fine-tuned with DAPO on Qwen3-4B. Jan-nano comes with some unique capabilities:

• It can perform deep research (with the right prompting)
• It picks up relevant information effectively from search results
• It uses tools efficiently

The model was evaluated using SimpleQA - a relatively straightforward benchmark to test whether the model can find and extract the right answers.

Jan-nano outperforms Deepseek-671B on this metric, using an agentic and tool-usage-based approach. A 4B model obviously has its limitations, but it's interesting to see how far these things can be pushed. Jan-nano can serve as your self-hosted Perplexity alternative on a budget.

You can find the model at: https://huggingface.co/Menlo/Jan-nano

And a gguf is available at: https://huggingface.co/Menlo/Jan-nano-gguf

https://archive.ph/P4lwg

https://xcancel.com/Cloudflare/status/1933256508210340301#m

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-openai-spotify-experience-outage-affecting-tens-of-thousands-of-users/

https://mashable.com/article/google-down-cloudflare-twitch-character-ai-internet-outage

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/tech/internet-outage-spotify-discord-cloudflare-google

This brings me to the debate over training AI and copyright. A lot of creative workers are justifiably angry and afraid that the AI companies want to destroy creative jobs. The CTO of Openai literally just said that onstage: "Some creative jobs maybe will go away, but maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place":

Many of these workers are accordingly cheering on the entertainment industry's lawsuits over AI training. In these lawsuits, companies like the New York Times and Getty Images claim that the steps associated with training an AI model infringe copyright. This isn't a great copyright theory based on current copyright precedents, and if the suits succeed, they'll narrow fair use in ways that will impact all kinds of socially beneficial activities, like scraping the web to make the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine:

...

Here's the problem: establishing that AI training requires a copyright license will not stop AI from being used to erode the wages and working conditions of creative workers. The companies suing over AI training are also notorious exploiters of creative workers, union-busters and wage-stealers. They don't want to get rid of generative AI, they just want to get paid for the content used to create it. Their use-case for gen AI is the same as Openai's CTO's use-case: get rid of creative jobs and pay less for creative labor.

This isn't hypothetical. Remember last summer's actor strike? The sticking point was that the studios wanted to pay actors a single fee to scan their bodies and faces, and then use those scans instead of hiring those actors, forever, without ever paying them again. Does it matter to an actor whether the AI that replaces you at Warner, Sony, Universal, Disney or Paramount (yes, three of the Big Five studios are also the Big Three labels!) was made by Openai without paying the studios for the training material, or whether Openai paid a license fee that the studios kept?

This is true across the board. The Big Five publishers categorically refuse to include contractual language promising not to train an LLM with the books they acquire from writers. The game studios require all their voice actors to start every recording session with an on-tape assignment of the training rights to the session:

And now, with total predictability, Universal – the largest music company in the world – has announced that it will start training voice-clones with the music in its catalog:

It would be really great if someone would do a study on artists' views on generative models & copyright law that also took into account the kind of work they do and their class position. I say "what they do" because doujinshi circles have an interest in weakening intellectual property contrary to other freelance artists, although I'm not sure if this is reflected in reality...

More recent updates: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114665423084970607

And updates from the Graphene chatroom:

it [porting] is not faster than expected. we finished most of what we thought we were going to need to do already. if they had not dropped a bunch of what we need, we could be doing experimental releases soon. instead, we do not know how long it's going to take to add back Pixel support to Android 16. Android Open Source Project no longer supports Pixels. we have to implement it ourselves in a new way, different than what we have done previously. we are missing our most talented and productive developer due to the conscription situation. the kernel port is a trivial part of it and they made that harder by no longer publishing kernel commit history and splitting the previously unified kernels into 3 separate groups.

Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro, Pixel 6a and Pixel 9a share a kernel branch. Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro, Pixel 7a, Pixel Tablet, Pixel Fold, Pixel 8, Pixel 8 Pro and Pixel 8a share a kernel branch. Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL and Pixel 9 Pro Fold share a kernel branch

there is a 1 line difference between the first 2 groups. there are major differences between the first 2 and the 3rd group.

before Android 16 it was fully unified, they messed that up, and dropped source code history from AOSP for Pixel kernel modules. the Pixel device repositories and hardware repositories are gone so we'll need to fork the 15 QPR2 device support and remove all the code, getting it from adevtool for now instead. this kills our hardware-based USB-C port control feature. we'll need to reimplement it in a new way

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/41060046

Editors almost immediately criticized the pilot, raising concerns that it could damage Wikipedia's credibility.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8171340

https://huggingface.co/papers/2506.05573

Our platform at work (hosted on GKE) is down and we have some execs looking to get “official” confirmation before we announce anything. Thankfully, Google’s status pages insist everything’s fine while all the GKE admin pages and command line tools are timing out.

Downdetector seems to suggest it’s an Internet wide widespread event but everything’s working fine for me. Anyone have any insight?

Also, Hexbear seems unaffected. Whoever does ops for the site, congrats on betting on the right horse, apparently.

https://archive.vn/5gRV3

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/09/apple-unveils-macos-tahoe-26/

first they laugh at you, then you win (c) windows vista

lmao, it's everywhere:

this is legible text and a fair representation of our design - real company evaluated in trillions

Tour of a cool factory without a single "but at what cost" from this cracker

cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/203196

The federal government is working on a website and API called “ai.gov” to “accelerate government innovation with AI” that is supposed to launch on July 4 and will include an analytics feature that shows how much a specific government team is using AI, according to an early version of the website and code posted by the General Services Administration on Github.

The page is being created by the GSA’s Technology Transformation Services, which is being run by former Tesla engineer Thomas Shedd. Shedd previously told employees that he hopes to AI-ify much of the government. AI.gov appears to be an early step toward pushing AI tools into agencies across the government, code published on Github shows.

“Accelerate government innovation with AI,” an early version of the website, which is linked to from the GSA TTS Github, reads. “Three powerful AI tools. One integrated platform.” The early version of the page suggests that its API will integrate with OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic products. But code for the API shows they are also working on integrating with Amazon Web Services’ Bedrock and Meta’s LLaMA. The page suggests it will also have an AI-powered chatbot, though it doesn’t explain what it will do.

The Github says “launch date - July 4.” Currently, AI.gov redirects to whitehouse.gov. The demo website is linked to from Github (archive here) and is hosted on cloud.gov on what appears to be a staging environment. The text on the page does not show up on other websites, suggesting that it is not generic placeholder text.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency made integrating AI into normal government functions one of its priorities. At GSA’s TTS, Shedd has pushed his team to create AI tools that the rest of the government will be required to use. In February, 404 Media obtained leaked audio from a meeting in which Shedd told his team they would be creating “AI coding agents” that would write software across the entire government, and said he wanted to use AI to analyze government contracts.

“We want to start implementing more AI at the agency level and be an example for how other agencies can start leveraging AI … that’s one example of something that we’re looking for people to work on,” Shedd said. “Things like making AI coding agents available for all agencies. One that we've been looking at and trying to work on immediately within GSA, but also more broadly, is a centralized place to put contracts so we can run analysis on those contracts.”

Government employees we spoke to at the time said the internal reaction to Shedd’s plan was “pretty unanimously negative,” and pointed out numerous ways this could go wrong, which included everything from AI unintentionally introducing security issues or bugs into code or suggesting that critical contracts be killed.

The GSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

From 404 Media via this RSS feed