You can back-propagate through the CoT iterations or recurrent layers, same as you can back-propagate through normal intermediate layers.

Generally people encrypt with both post-quantum crypto and regular crypto in series to prevent that from being a problem.

Someone studied this (among other thigns): https://dylancastillo.co/posts/pelicanmaxxing.html . Pelicans on bikes always face right in this test, but other animals on other transportation methods sometimes face left.

Destroying the original makes it easier to justify that scanning the books is fair use, because you haven't increased the number of copies. See page 16 of https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bar... : "This use was even more clearly transformative than those in Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax (where the number of copies went up by at least one)"

AI companies aren't fabbing processors. They're buying capacity at fabs to make their own designs. To make more RAM, they'd need to invest in making more DRAM fabs, which is a slow process.

Intent often matters in the law (aside from certain laws with strict liability). You intentionally drive your car into someone you hate and kill them => murder, go straight to jail. You're driving along normally and someone who's chasing their pet cat suddenly runs into traffic and you hit them => no charges. Sometimes you can be charged with negligence for not taking enough care to prevent something, but then you have to deal with the tricky question of how much care is enough.

If you're driving along normally and then tie a blindfold around your face and hit someone you've taken actions that still expose you to liability. And, in the case that you hit someone who is chasing their pet cat into traffic then you'd better hope you were following every facet of safe driving - being distracted, drunk or on your phone could easily result in you being charged.

> Nevertheless one has to feel very strongly to share such a take here in this manner unless they are gaining something from it.

Do they really? What does it cost them if they're wrong?

If they leave at all info about security patterns, you get an AI that knows how to code, but doesn't know what can make code insecure. That doesn't seem like a great idea.

Must have been https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mrGMMmrVNE from Welch Labs.

That video is pretty good, thanks for finding it. I'm basically betting that an earlier, abandoned approach described in the video, "Code as Policy", will beat everything else. It requires no training data, and generalizes instantly to all robots.

Yes :-)

"JPEG" is short for Joint Photographic Experts Group, an ISO/ITU group that creates a lot of imaging standards. The JPEG image format you're thinking of is only one of the formats they've created.