No, they did not. They made it free to download, but open-access† licensing would permit third parties to legally mirror it on servers that don't block access from Algeria or Switzerland or privacy-focused browsers, and so far that licensing hadn't happened. I'm happy to see that apparently it's happening today.
> Making the first 50 years of its publications and related content freely available expresses ACM’s commitment to open access publication and represents another milestone in our transition to full open access within the next five years.
I wouldn't have understood that nuance without the context given by your comment, but in my developer mind I analogize "freely available" to a "source available" license that they took on, as a step towards going open access ("free and open source") over time. I'm also happy to see that that transition seems on track as planned.
Only up to 2000. It’s unclear if the catalog from 2000 to 2025 will be fully made open. There may be legal obstacles if the originating authors and institutions don’t consent.
I haven’t been able to find anything that states otherwise. What changes in January is the policy for new publications.
I think they're trying to avoid rewriting things for no reason though. The things being rewritten tend to have a history of security problems or other issues that would be cause for a rewrite even if it wasn't in Rust.
That ends up being "rewrite it in Rust" because new code includes changes to existing code. A nice thing about Rust is that you can generally rewrite things piecewise there's no need to switch everything at once.
There is some long term planning going on, but bad luck when sampling the next token can take the process out of rails, so it's not just an implementation detail.
A paper that says: "our approach is simpler than the state of the art". But also does not loudly say "our approach is significantly behind the state of the art on all metrics". Not easy to get published, but I guess putting it as a preprint with a big company's name will help...
It's cute that you think your high-school level cypher is probably not seen in the training set of one of the biggest LLMs in the world. Surely no one could have thought of such a cypher, let alone create exercises around it!
No one should ever make claims such as "X is not in <LLM>'s training set". You don't know. Even if your idea is indeed original, nothing prevents someone from having though of it before, and published it. The history of science is full of simultaneous discoveries, and we're talking cutting-edge research.
The point is not that the cypher is hard, the point is that the randomish string it needs to answer the question can’t possibly be computed just from correlations from the training data. Rather, it learned an emergent, generalizable skill that it used to solve it.
