GamingChairModel

It's like responding to your employee losing an arm, ripped off by your tiger, and saying "I'm never going to financially recover from this."

Basically they'd need about as much in radiator fin surface area as they would have in solar panel area. The ISS has 8 solar array wings, 35m x 12m, that can produce about 30 kW each, or 240 kW total, in sunlight (which is only half the time). The ISS has a complex cooling system, but relies on 4 radiators about 3.1 m x 13.6 m to reject up to 14 kW of heat each (56 kW total) for cooling the solar arrays themselves. The main cooling system uses 6 radiators, each 23.3 m x 3.4 m, to reject 70 kW of heat (from this report it sounds like each radiator may be capable of rejecting more than 1/6 of the heat but that the system as a whole needs to be kept under 70 kW of heat rejection).

So that seems like about 650 square meters of radiators can provide about 120 kW of heat rejection.

Today, a 72-GPU Blackwell server is 130 kW in a single server rack. The next generation rolling out now has 72 Rubin GPUs in a 230 kW server, in a single rack. And that's not even a "data center." That's just a single (albeit very powerful) server. How many can you string together, with networking equipment beaming data connections back down to the ground, before the ratio of solar panels and radiators to the actual ship size becomes unworkable?

That said, it's technically possible, especially if you can radiate the heat at higher temperatures than the ISS does, as the Stefan-Boltzmann law shows that the hotter the radiator, the more heat it can reject. Just completely infeasible from an engineering and economical standpoint, for any data center that hopes to be relevant in an age of 100+ MW data centers.

If you're ok zooming out far enough you can serve a static image of the pale blue dot and a red arrow pointing to it.

Dental 3D printing is a different beast from consumer printers. The dental printers are already certified to actually create regulator approved devices that can go in a patient's mouth.

The CBA with the union provides the protections. The bare minimum the state requires for everyone isn't all that relevant when you have a negotiated contract for much more than that bare minimum, whether it's for-cause termination protections, mandatory notice and severance pay for layoffs, etc.

No, the article is saying that it is why these robots were popular. Because unlike a human delivery person, there was no tip expected for the robots.

Exactly. Cloud connected devices should still be able to do all the offline and/or local things when its connection to the server is down.

My lights, door lock, air conditioning, and smoke detector all have some online functionality, but they all still work normally locally and offline when my Internet is down, including programmed functions by time of day, etc.

Trade secrets necessarily have to be analyzed under the protections of contract law.

Something can only be a trade secret if the purported owner of that proprietary information protects the confidentiality of that information, including through contractual restrictions. That's why I'm talking about contracts when asking whether trade secret protections apply.

I just pulled up the ChatGPT terms of use

Who's talking about ChatGPT or OpenAI?

I just pulled up the Anthropic commercial API terms, since that's the situation covered by the original article (big corporation using Anthropic's paid API):

Use Restrictions. Customer may not and must not attempt to (a) access the Services to build a competing product or service, including to train competing AI models except as expressly approved by Anthropic; (b) reverse engineer or duplicate the Services; or (c) support any third party’s attempt at any of the conduct restricted in this sentence.

Ok, so it's a contract that purports to prohibit pretty much this kind of model weight extraction, and I'm saying that Anthropic probably considers the model weights to be trade secrets.

Are you under the impression that trade secret protection only happens when the contract says the words "trade secret"?

Or, analogously, consider customer lists. Having a contract that says "don't copy my customer lists even if I sometimes disclose a single customer at a time when we partner together on projects" is probably enough to adequately maintain trade secret protection over those customer lists, even if individual customers are sometimes disclosed under a contract.

I'm just stating what I believe the law is, not what it should be, or even claiming that what the law is today is good. I'm just saying everyone should be aware that the law is quite protective of big corporations and their proprietary secrets. I still think this qualifies as a trade secret that they've protected with their own contracts.

Ok, do these countries also make a contract not to distill LLMs void, as well?

Can you name a country where signing up for a paid account to an online service, and using the service and paying the invoice that comes in, doesn't form a legally binding contract between the customer and the vendor?

Sharing trade secrets under the terms of a contract that dictates how one can use the information still retains trade secret protections.

Without a contract: intentional disclosure to the person who receives it generally destroys the trade secret status of the information, because the "owner" of the information didn't do a good job trying to protect it.

With a contract: intentional disclosure to a person under the terms of the contract makes the contract's own protections of the information relevant, and misuse of the information by the recipient can get them sued under the contract. Plus, the information itself probably retains trade secret protection so that even if that person gives the information to a third party who can't be sued under a contract they never agreed to, there are still rights to protect that trade secret as property.

I'd be shocked if any paid API use isn't under a robust, enforceable contract. The only question is whether the contract language itself effectively prohibits distillation.