The OpenAI Responses API now returns a 404 Not Found for "gpt-6-astra", where garbage/actually non-existent slugs return 400s - a 404 is also returned for 5.6 Cyber, which we know exists.
Watermarks should even be removable "if substantially proofread or altered" in the EU for the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself.
Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
Watermarks cane even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says. For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself.
Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
(If you post a comment here on HN, then hit the back button, edit your comment, and click “reply” again, you end up posting multiple comments. That’s what’s happened here.)
Maybe this is silly: what about zero-width spaces or other hidden characters? Add them in post-processing, and the response quality doesn't degrade (though rendering etc. might be wonky).
Yes, it is silly. Stripping these is about as trivial as removing "this post was written by Claude" appended in plaintext. You could make a clipboard monitor that does this as soon as you CTRL+C, it's a 1-shot prompt. Not to mention that these wonky Unicode chars will break in every other program.
Stripping Anthropic's watermarking, however, is more difficult - probably about 2 prompts.
But your average joe won't "setup custom clipboard monitor to auto clip out whitespace". That's why Gemini still include its logo into generated picture even if it's trivial to crop it out
Ok, sounds like a watermark of “this post was written by Claude” is sufficient then. Or don’t add any at all - the average joe is that Canadian politician whose speech included “here is a more natural-flowing version of that section that sounds more like legislative speech rather than a series of short points.”
The real problem is false positives. One false positives is enough to make the whole thing dangerous. The results can't really be acted upon without risking defamation. If you admit that you redistributed someone else's copyrighted work to an AI company that never forgets, it's an admission of distributing copyrighted works.
The law should have at the very least required offline validation tools that cannot track or retain a copy of the documents being checked.
Strictly speaking, properly checking C2PA metadata requires network requests in the general case, because you need to check if the signing certificate has been revoked or not via OCSP.
But in anthropic's use case they can probably get away with just pinning their own certs in the verification webpage.
This isn't an open source project like Anubis and apparently you have to pay $50 for advanced features:
> POWBlock is shareware. Good shareware we hope, because we only gate the optional "enterprise-level" super-nerd stuff behind a paid license and give 100% of the main features for free. But for that reason the source code is closed and private. That being said, we're not scared of code reviews. If you're a bona fide security researcher willing to sign an NDA and publicly vouch for what you find, we can let you look at it.
> Reach out to us and/or drop some crypto. A license key is a flat 50 US dollars. If you buy as an individual operator, the key is valid for your lifetime for as many copies as you want, any where you want, just as long as you are the sole owner/renter of the physical servers you deploy on. Corporate/government entities need 1 license key for each US State and/or non-US country they plan to deploy it in, but can do unlimited deployments in any such place that they have a license.
Apparently you only want wayland based DEs and considered the argument to be over for everyone.
How wrong were you. Lot's of people don't want to use wayland until it reaches a certain feature-complete maturity. I for instance have again put it off for another year and won't consider running a wayland only DE at all for the forseable future since it breaks too many things for no good reason and I need to be able to switch back to X11 if needed. I use my pc for for work, not just as a troubleshooting toy.
Taking the topic into account of people moving from old school Windows 7 to this Windows-like distro, these people will probably be more pleased by X11 (hassle free screen sharing, global shortcuts) vs the wayland "in theory it is great and modern but in practice there still are way too many incomplete and missing pieces" situation.
Wayland is stable. What it's not is stagnant, like X11, which lacks fractional/mixed-DPI scaling, per-window HDR/color management, explicit GPU synchronization, and a security model ready for the modern challenges of the mid 90s.
It's also technically cross-platform, as evidenced by FreeBSD's support for Wayland compositors. But it's not its goal either, the goal is an excellent Linux desktop, not something that serves the 17 people in the world that routinely run the same exact desktop config on Linux and non-Linux PCs.
X11 used to crash all the time, especially after an update, back when it was being vibrantly developed. It's been a lot more stable since it got abandoned. I've not had a crash in 13 years.
Matter of fact, the vast majority has moved on to Wayland years ago, both KDE and Gnome have reported their usage stats and neither sees a point in keeping X11 afloat. I too have been using Wayland (KDE) for years, it addressed some decades-long struggles around multi monitor and DPI layouts. I use input methods for CJK that work better and more consistently than before. As far as I'm concerned, this ship has sailed, for the better.
Wayland is annoying out of touch crap that works well enough for some people to think it's good. Enjoy your Wayland. Surely all the people who aren't you must just be stupid.
First thing that caught my eye is the space between the command prompt and the first character of the command; but other than that, it's very much "I can't believe it's not Windows".
AeroThemePlasma is by far the closest that exists now, but I think there’s still a space for DE dedicated to being as close of a Windows analogue as possible while remaining legally distinct with a fixed feature set to prevent feature and resource creep. Think a desktop close enough to the user’s choice between 2K, XP, 7, 10 or 11 that they could transition from Windows to Linux and barely even notice that there was a change.
I believe that “my favorite OS, frozen in time” has substantial demand (which will only increase as the big commercial OSes continue to enshittify) and it’s surprising that there aren’t more attempts to capitalize on that.
I think in the long term, such a project could be more sustainable than projects focused on an “original” experience.
KDE, GNOME, etc spend a lot of resources on new features and overhauls to enable new features. A fixed-feature replica project by comparison would eventually achieve a “finished” state, with resources instead going towards optimizations, bug fixes, code correctness, etc which are overall less demanding and make unavoidable tech migrations (e.g. X11 → Wayland) less of a pain since the project won’t be mired in tech debt.
The thing is that this would seem to be a whole new shell, needing constant maintenance and adjustment to keep it current with KDE.
Whereas AIUI the alternative here is just a cosmetic change to Xfce and shouldn't need any maintenance at all. There are only new KDE releases once every 2 years.
I know which of those I'd want. As it happens, I also much prefer Xfce to KDE: it's smaller, simpler, lighter, faster, more coherent, and complies much better with Windows's keyboard UI.
I liked the transparency very much. Had it enabled in Windows7 for all of the 14 years. Until software incompatibility forced me to install Windows 10.
> its impossible to do this fully with anthropic or openai
It is possible, but is way more involved. You need to get cyber verification for either of them, and it's a little easier to get with OpenAI. Afterwards you can do such work.
It might be possible to do it fully, but you sure will lose a lot of time hand holding Claude to make it believe it's not doing anything too nefarious.
I have valid cyber verification with Claude (they approved it super fast, in ~2 hours after applying)
It still blocks and stops pretty much all the time because of rail guards. Specially since the release of Opus 5. I do believe when Anthropic asks during the verification process "what will you use this for", that they somehow use that info during the chat to decide whether to block or not the request.
So you might be able to do one thing in cyber, but not another one. I seem to be able to research and reverse binaries with Claude, most of the time, and if I phrase my questions in certain ways. However, any kind of code developing that could be tangentially related to malware is blocked, for me.
I am seriously considering switching to GLM or another Chinese vendor, even after being cyber verified on Claude. The routine blocks I face on the tasks that I applied to the program (reverse engineering, exploit dev) are enough to make me think its better to move ship.
I'm sorry, but it looks like someone's tiny game demo when they're learning HTML, with random mismatching assets pulled from some free packs (I guess in this case they're just generated). I fail to see any novelty or technical curiosity in this.
Unfortunately this is a very misleading post. I don't doubt the end result - it's useful that it works, but it's not "natively" and, unlike what some people assume, Claude didn't write a driver. It basically used HP's existing proprietary driver in a Linux VM on macOS, and just bridged that to macOS.
It also requires a root launcher that runs code from the user ~/.hp1008 dir, so security is weakened.
reply