Because they all use the illegal Colossus 2 data centre from SpaceX/XAi/fascism central and that data centre went down.
Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI all have contracts with them.
When that illegally running environmental disaster of data centre goes down, all those services all go over capacity and you get 502 rate limit errors.
Generally no, because most hosting companies would have something baked into SLA/SLO contracts, but all of this shit is done so illegally and shadily now, I wouldn’t put a hard “no” on that possibility.
Not true. I’ve been involved in litigation with both AWS and Google over unsecured comms that were defined as being TLS secured in SLA/SLO contracts and found not to be. Not that anything nefarious was happening necessarily, but the expectation is clear.
Whether these asshats even check for such requirements with a Musk run company right now 🤷
It COULD possibly be that they are logging every exchange happening at the network fabric between the service layers, but nobody knows unless they intentionally take steps to investigate or accidentally prove it.
You’re missing the point, nobody is talking about trusting these companies.
You can tell if a connection is encrypted end to end or not. And if your paying for that service you can sue if you aren’t receiving what your paying for.
In digital security nobody relies on trust if they can help it. And security matters if you want to keep a competitive edge on your competition, so even shitty companies care about that.
I was not talking about your specific lawsuit, or TLS.
Companies trust other companies all the time, and it’s foundational to most all SLA/SLOs. Any time I’ve voiced concerns around how AI companies are using the data we are giving them (like giving them access to our codebase), it’s brushed off as “we have an agreement with them”. It’s just a load of hogwash. They can and will abuse all data they have access to, just as they have done thus far.
In this particular case, we are talking about a data center, and it is not at all reasonable to assume that the data that flows to said data center is in any way protected, especially one run by Musk.
I’m not sure if you mean “trust” as in a handshake or not, but that’s not what we’re talking about about. At larger scales, everything is done in written contracts, strictly. Shit rolls DOWNhill if those are not airtight, and that’s when lawsuits kick off.
Because they all use the illegal Colossus 2 data centre from SpaceX/XAi/fascism central and that data centre went down.
Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI all have contracts with them.
When that illegally running environmental disaster of data centre goes down, all those services all go over capacity and you get 502 rate limit errors.
Does that mean Musk’s businesses have access to everything people do on the systems that use their data centers?
Generally no, because most hosting companies would have something baked into SLA/SLO contracts, but all of this shit is done so illegally and shadily now, I wouldn’t put a hard “no” on that possibility.
Nobody can verify that those “contracts” are actually being honored. We are all assuming the fascists will self police themselves out of good will.
Not true. I’ve been involved in litigation with both AWS and Google over unsecured comms that were defined as being TLS secured in SLA/SLO contracts and found not to be. Not that anything nefarious was happening necessarily, but the expectation is clear.
Whether these asshats even check for such requirements with a Musk run company right now 🤷
It COULD possibly be that they are logging every exchange happening at the network fabric between the service layers, but nobody knows unless they intentionally take steps to investigate or accidentally prove it.
Still means jack shit. Companies will lie through their teeth and violate any and all they can get away with.
They are not to be trusted.
You’re missing the point, nobody is talking about trusting these companies.
You can tell if a connection is encrypted end to end or not. And if your paying for that service you can sue if you aren’t receiving what your paying for.
In digital security nobody relies on trust if they can help it. And security matters if you want to keep a competitive edge on your competition, so even shitty companies care about that.
I was not talking about your specific lawsuit, or TLS.
Companies trust other companies all the time, and it’s foundational to most all SLA/SLOs. Any time I’ve voiced concerns around how AI companies are using the data we are giving them (like giving them access to our codebase), it’s brushed off as “we have an agreement with them”. It’s just a load of hogwash. They can and will abuse all data they have access to, just as they have done thus far.
In this particular case, we are talking about a data center, and it is not at all reasonable to assume that the data that flows to said data center is in any way protected, especially one run by Musk.
I’m not sure if you mean “trust” as in a handshake or not, but that’s not what we’re talking about about. At larger scales, everything is done in written contracts, strictly. Shit rolls DOWNhill if those are not airtight, and that’s when lawsuits kick off.
Impossible to know.
There are systems for doing things cryptographically secure, but I don’t know much about that.
Cryptography? Security? FROM A GENAI COMPANY?!
Well yeah, for themselves
And where is said data center? For research purposes
Ah, so Colossus 2 is the target. Remember that, everyone.
The Macrohard Memphis site?
And macroharder it seems… Macrohardest next? https://epoch.ai/data/ai-data-centers/directory/colossus-2
Loosely named after MicroSoft (penis).
I’m not sure that would effect inference on an already trained model. Data sets are primarily used in training.