skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To address a lot of the negativity around copyright fair-use, Copilot should have probably adopted something like Stackoverflow's model where contributors get rewarded by points. In this case the repo that the code used by Copilot came from would get a new type of star rating and the more people used it Copilot would assign more stars. Fractional stars would be awarded depending on what fraction of each code snippet Copilot thinks came from a specific repo...

It could maybe at some point send rewards in form of donations etc. from Copilot users, similar to Sponsored repos.
Before the cats came: The web of 1995 leaves me nostalgic for simpler times
> If reusing the code in another codebase then definitely attribution would be required. But using it as a dataset seems a bit different-- a grey area.

It's already been demonstrated that Copilot - like all tools in the GPT family - frequently output large chunks of their training dataset verbatim. It's not hard to trigger this behavior, even unintentionally. To me, this is much closer to "reusing". But I'm not a lawyer.

It's also worth remembering that there are two parties potentially open to liability here - GitHub, with the way the code was used with the Copilot, and the user, who may be unwittingly including licensed code in their codebase. Given the well-known behavior of the GPT family I mentioned above, it might be hard to argue that Copilot "just chanced" into generating code that's identical to existing, non-public-domain code.
Exactly, make it all walkable/bikable with mass transit down the arterials, and incentives and density to attract the commerce. Particularly for mom+pop stores/restaurants.

And have it all near enough school and offices that a <10 minute bus ride can get you to those campuses.

And you can still have islands of SFH/Townhouses that are within ~4 blocks of high density (I'd probably prefer that since I'm quite introverted most of the time).
Related, 50% CPU usage on a hyper-threaded CPU isn't 50%. It is usually closer to 80-90% depending on the workload. Something to watch out for when monitoring.
I like that the URL has en_US but all the info is for the UK.
Transformers do learn and abstract. Not as well as humans, but for whatever definitive of innovation or creativity you wanna run with, these gpt models have it. It's not magic, it's math, but these programs are approximating the human function of media synthesis across narrowly limited domains.

These aren't your crazy uncle's Markov chain chatbots. They're sophisticated bayesian models trained to approximate the functions that produced the content used in training.
In the Collections modules you can easily see your imported images based on what folder they are in.
Is that traditional A/B testing, such as what landing page gets the most sign ups, or are you somehow A/B testing The sites SEO?
Tons of licences require at least attribution.
It really depends on the project, or put it another way, the ROI. Then core protocols of a storage system or an OS kernel will benefit from formal methods, but I’m not sure a CRUD app will.

Besides, TLA+ is not panacea in formal methods. It’s a specification language, which means its users will still need to master temporal logic, first-order predicate logic, formal specification, and a slew of concepts, such as spurious counterexamples. And remember that essential complexity is in specifying a system? Now try to specify something as simple as quicksort. Let’s just say specifying a system with mathematical logic is beyond 99.99% of software engineers. Not that people are incapable, but I doubt people have enough incentive to swallow the cost. For one, how much does it cost to debug a spec? Don’t believe me, do try out the book by Hehner: http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~hehner/FMSD/, or introductory books like this: https://www.amazon.com/Verification-Reactive-Systems-Algorit..., and you’ll get the idea. And yes, I thoroughly studied the mentioned books cover to cover and still think they are not for the majority of software engineers.
Yes, but even if we double the time estimate, I don't think that's prohibitively slow.

Only with the many day duration to traverse oceans eihtou planes do I get worried.
You'd be surprised. Often, the tests are more work than the "working code" itself. At companies that have a test heavy focus, I'd say roughly 50% or 60% of the effort is spent on tests (this includes future work to maintaining tests as they are affected by other areas of the code, etc.) You may not be able to get your PR approved without enough tests.
It's GPL, so I expect a fork in about 3, 2, 1...
Don't know about saved, but definitely sent.

I guess one risk after knowing that Github regards all source code regardless of its license to be fair game for training Copilot is that you probably can't know for sure that your new code is not being used to teach the model more.
> He wasn't a good human being

Good is the enemy of great.
That's the best idea I read on how to solve this problem, which sadly means it won't be implemented.... :P

For the record I did upvote you!
> I am surprised you are able to DMCA a twitch stream because someone whistle india jones theme but in this case it is considered fair use

Why is it surprising? Indiana Jones is private IP. The code was published with an OSS license explicitly authorizing its use.
> "I told him it would be impossible to enter but he said he might have a way," says Oshima. "He called his secretary in the US and ten minutes later, I got a call from the Nomura headquarters saying that we had a reservation for a personal viewing the following day."

My favorite casual Apple flex like this is the aerial screensaver on the Apple TV that was very obviously shot in 120fps in 4 or 8K (the published video is 4K) from a drone flying over an active LAX. (The drone's flight paths appear to be restricted to over the passenger terminal and taxiways, but still.)

Most people would miss the significance, but very few organizations on Earth would be authorized to get such footage.
Yeah until I learned how to see the throttling with “pmset -g thermlog” I didn’t realize I was throttling so much.

I feel that should be made clear on the various CPU usage utilities.
> DDG-79 Oscar Austin. That is a battleship

No, it is a destroyer, see https://www.surflant.usff.navy.mil/ddg79/. Other than Hollywood, no one had built a battleship since around the end of WWII.
That’s actually an awesome idea, just create a virtual "cpu_throttling" task and attribute the throttling to this task.
I always thought the roadmap.sh Backend Developer Roadmap gives a nice overview of technologies and concepts. Even though it misses some things imo (identity management comes to mind)

https://roadmap.sh/backend
That's how foreign names work. People hear the name used in another language, and then they adapt the pronunciation and/or spelling to their own language.

As a Finnish speaker, "Ganges" has the familiar form of a name borrowed from Greek or Latin, and it does not need further adaptation. "Ganga", on the other hand, sounds awkward in Finnish. Had ancient Finns been in contact with India, we would probably know the river as Kanka or Kankajoki ("Kanka river"). The latter in particular sounds like a proper Finnish river name.
The news post is supposed to be "change log" style, while the blog post is meant for regular user consumption.
This is what I'm responding to:

> It may not do precisely what you want but it will run and not crash.

To me, that's a bad thing. I'd rather my software fail entirely than give incorrect results.

So what did I read wrong?
Your public source code is not "personal data".
What's hilarious about auto-generating the GPL license is that it's provable Copilot is trained on GPL code, but it's essentially impossible to tell which code it came from. Any legal battle will be strange... Is it enough for Copilot to not regurgitate GPL licensed code exactly? Is it enough for Copilot to create a slightly modified version?
Laughably, as soon as slight variation is added, there is so much code in the world that it'll be impossible to prove wrongdoing for HTML or JavaScript synthesis. A model trained on all permissively licensed code on GitHub looks a lot like your own GPL code? Are you sure your code is so unique?

Microsoft of course will implement compliance standards as necessary (they genuinely do not want to break the law), but what does this mean for smaller companies and individuals training models?
You would have asked for them. That's the point of those kinds of services: you decide on our plans and leave the arrangements to someone else.

For what it's worth, I've stopped at B&Bs in Peak District (England) where you tell them which tor you wish to hike and you're provided with a map and packed lunch.
I've you've ever read a book or interacted with any product, you've learned from copyrighted material.

You've extrapolated "some organizations don't allow you to contribute if you've learned from the code of their direct competitor" to "You're not allowed to learn from copyrighted code", which is absurd.
Where the risk of building the thing wrong is outweighed by the risk of building the wrong thing then formal methods make no sense.
Thanks for that insight.

I was just curious how folks outside of startup & tech find their way to HN.

I haven't got further than high school education either and I'm sure many on here neither.

There is a difference between education and learning.

Seth Godin has a good episode about this on his latest podcast in the QA section.

Listen from 14:00 onwards.

https://podcasts.podinstall.com/seth-godin-akimbo-podcast-se...
I did not edit my comments above after reading your replies, why do you ask? What do you think I changed that affected how the thread reads?

And, who says improving or clarifying a comment is poor form? What is the edit button for, and why is it available once replies have been posted?
Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287 - July 2021 (625 comments)
(1990)
In current Spanish the standard onomatopaeia for a sheep's sound is "beee". The b is pronounced like the English b, and the e is like the e in "test".
GPLv2 says:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

I can see several possible readings. The first sentence seems to regard "use" as out of scope, and therefore, MuseScore could be well within their rights to restrict it. But the second sentence then seems to grant an unrestricted right to run the program, which this policy denies for people under 13.

edit: GPLv3 says:

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

I can't see this being allowed under GPLv3. And the GPL is pretty clear that in "GPLv2 or later" situations, it's the user who chooses.
Oh, then today I learned! I didn't realise they were different. Just looked it up in a "plain English dictionary of law" and the distinction seems subtle but important. Rather than "with the intention of depriving the owner", the US one says "with the intention of converting it to their use", which seems broad enough to cover exploiting a copy, rather than the original (or only, in the physical realm...)
This argument is very convenient for OpenAI.
You can test if a processor is GenuineIntel or AuthenticAMD or something with cpuid eax=0 and act accordingly. So no problem whatsoever if AMD uses it for something else.
I think the fear response comes from people who don't assign probabilities to things, so they just see that everything is a risk (leading to disorders like OCD in the extreme).

And at work you can see people focusing on mitigating the wrong security issues. There's a sort of maslow's heirarchy of security that needs to happen, and some people noodle way too hard on memory bit flipping attacks and not on just making sure you can't ssh into something with a guessable root password. Of course its more intellectually challenging to think about all the ways that the NSA could break into Google, but if you don't work at Google its all the boring shit you need to make sure you have in order.
It's hard to overstate the intellectual puzzle this is!

Classical Chinese scholarship had a developed body of proto-linguistics, including rime spelling, a system for phonetic transcription and analysis, which transcribed sounds using Chinese characters purely phonetically. It was used to indicate the pronunciation of characters, as well as foreign words in bilingual dictionaries and so on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanqie

The problem is, it's mostly self-referential. As the Wikipedia example gives, we don't precisely know how 東 was pronounced in 1000 AD from a fanqie dictionary entry. It would tell us something like that 東 (dong1 in Mandarin or dung1 in Cantonese today) was pronounced in the author's time like the initial consonant in 德 (de2, dak) with a closing syllable pronounced like 紅 (hong2, hung4). And of course, a dictionary from a thousand years before that, or even just from a speaker on the other side of China, might give a different entry...

If you collect all the known fanqie pronunciations given in all the eras from all the probable sister languages, and especially when you start comparing with our knowledge of other languages (Japanese, Sanskrit, etc.) you can start to piece together the puzzle and get a rather good understanding of Chinese historical sound change.

Chinese scholars back then were aware, on some level, of sound change, especially later in the Ming and Qing dynasties, but there was no general theory to address it, and the apparent contradictions in the ancient poetry and the old rime dictionaries were a source of a lot of perplexity.
Numerical Algorithms for Number Theory Using PARI/GP
Worse than that! Those kids can use audacity to facilitate COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Ok, now I see the point of confusion.

Erlang is my go-to language when I have the freedom to choose, and it is explicitly designed to crash when there's a mismatch between the expected and current state.

So, I was indeed missing the point of the statement.
What a cool court case this would make. Is copilot's model sufficiently abstracted from the code it has read? Judges and juries learning about how the GitHub team avoided overfitting? Are humans who have read open source code producing derivative works?

Won't be long until we see an infringement case. /me grabs popcorn
When I looked for one, it was hard to get one to fit me ergonomically: while I am relatively tall, I actually needed it to go pretty low (68-69cm for the top of the desk), and then pretty high when standing (>120cm).

I've gotten a no-name brand one and it still serves me well: with a couple (usually) electric motors in them, there's not much to differentiate between them anyway, so look for one that fits your budget and has the right properties for you.
How does Copilot avoid training on malicious code? There might be bad actors who would love to have their code scraped for this...
good thing there's absolutely no reason to store any data about users of an offline desktop app!
I consider myself serious, though I don't photograph for a living.

The new scene referred workflow and specifically the Tone Equalizer module can pull a lot of details out of the shadows and does it really well.

I've never used Lightroom but it seems their highlight recovery is better, but that's about it.
Sure, single-family zoning is a necessary but not sufficient development for housing reform. Can't have density with it, but doesn't mean there isn't a laundry list of other things wrong with housing in the bay
As an addendum, if you enjoy these type of rihlas, another good one is Usama Ibn Munqidh's 'Book of Contemplation' which describes his interactions with Crusaders.
Software isn’t a special unique snowflake as some developers, who have never worked in other fields, will tell you. Software certainly seems unique though when you have no other professional employment experience to compare it to.

The primary problem with missing formal methods is supplemental guidance bolted on artificially in search of a problem producing some canned solution. The reason for that people tend to focus on their personal needs instead of business needs. For example many developers will suggest an approach of personal familiarity even if it costs more, performs poorly, and lowers product quality. Furthermore many developers tend to focus on composition and tools first as opposed to saving composition for the final step and using either no tools or a more correct tool for the job.

Formal methods on the other hand provide guidance for a planning process that articulates the work to be performed opposed to how that work should be done.
When the OS has asked the CPU to slow down to more closely match the performance currently required by the software, then it is somewhat misleading to report that an application is using 90+% of the CPU time, even if the CPU is actually spending 90+% of its time running that application.

However, when the CPU's speed has been reduced because it's too hot or the system is otherwise unable to allow the processor to sustain its full clock speed, you absolutely should see the Task Manager reporting 100% utilization. This scenario is what more often comes to mind when the term "throttled" is used.

If a hardware platform's power management capabilities make it impractical for the operating system to satisfy both of the above goals, then it should favor the latter goal, and err on the side of not lying to the user when your system is truly operating at its limits.
Back in college I wrote some Postscript code to change gnuplot to do some 3D stuff that I needed for a visualization project. Fortunately, I don't remember it at all.
That's a bit extreme. In cases where things move quite quickly, we should still be able to provide some formal guarantees. There's a whole spectrum of formal methods ranging from formal proofs to rich type systems and design by contract.

I have personally had a lot of success with some techniques, and I'm quite hopeful ideas such as those in Liquid Haskell will eventually become mainstream.
Not really unless you force the source code of proprietary software to be published. If you don't, copyleft has a role to play.
> FWIW GPT-3 doesn't really tend to spit out verbatim reproductions of copyrighted books.

But it does spit out whole paragraphs at a time. This is easy to test by going to any of the GPT-2/3 playgrounds on-line (e.g. AI Dungeon), and playing with prompts. Very specific prompts work best, but sometimes even with a generic prompt, if you let the model continue on its own past the first output, it might just shunt itself into a path where following the most probable continuations happens to reproduce a substantial portion of some work verbatim.
Just because his positives were rare doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that he was a criminal swindler who conspired to cheat workers as his company as well as others out of billions of dollars of wages.

It's not like Apple or these other companies whose executives participated in the criminal conspiracy were struggling at the time, either. They could have paid the salaries required for retention. It was pure, unmitigated greed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

> The defendants are Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay

Don't ever work for any of these firms, and remember that Schmidt and Jobs et al are thieves.
It's the 3rd option: YT follows off-the-record recommendations to avoid potential problems with authorities. There are written, but unofficial, per-country rules and there's a well defined process to squash dissent: ML models analyze videos and comments to find non-complaint users, numerous contractors look at the automated flags and write their summaries, corp employees, up to VP level, review the reports and cancel the non-complaint users.
Such a great question. Remember Tay?
> My non-expert reading of the AGPL seems to indicate that using AGPL code in a commercial project is find as long as you don't change it.

When you combine some [A]GPL code with said commercial project, you create a derivative work. And that work has to be compatible with [A]GPL's conditions as well. Which is usually not great for a commercial (closed-source) project.
There are too many media outlets that peg darktable as "free lightroom" so people comein expecting that. Sure we do similar things, but we are the same like an F1 car and a Honda civic are similar.

It gets really old listening to people complain how it isn't FREE LIGHTROOM
> What do you think I changed

I think you added

> Which “it” are you referring to?...

Because I have a tab open and can see the old one!
Realistically, you can't. With institutional investors, generally if you want their money, you'll have to play by their rules. Your corporate charter / bylaws aren't set in stone, and will just get updated during the next financing round.
A simulator for the OBP spaceflight computer
Any commercial company building a "metaverse" will to some extent just end up with another walled garden. Which, I suppose, goes against the ideals of a metaverse.

Only a fully open source project could give the freedom to do anything in a virtual world. Something you can run yourself, fully modify, and connect to others. Then again, open source gaming isn't a very big scene. Something usable on this scale seems unlikely for now.

So... commercial virtual spaces it'll end up being. Enjoy your ads.
There’s a lot of consternation over copyright issues, but I see an entirely different problem. When I hear this tool described and see it’s examples the first thing I think is that Github has just automated the dubious process of copy/pasting from StackOverflow.

As a senior developer, I am strongly biased against the SO+c/p programming approach that I’ve seen many Junior and mid level developers use. There’s certainly a time and place for it when you become really stuck but at least having to go out and find the code yourself requires thought which helps you grow.

My gut reaction to Copilot is that adding this automation into IDEs is going to have a net-negative effect on growing developers as it lowers the level of thought and effort necessary to write even trivial applications. This is a huge detriment to learning. You don’t even get the chance to try to solve the problems yourself because the AI is going to be proactively getting in the way of your learning.

All that being said, I think a tool like this could be of great use with boilerplate within a project — but only suggesting things from that project. For example, setting up a new api route, dependency injection, error propagation, etc. Help with all of these mechanical things would be awesome.
A key problem with this proposal is that modern CPUs do not have a single definitive maximum frequency. You have the base frequency which is rarely relevant outside of synthetic workloads then you have a variety of turbo frequencies which interact in complex ways. AMD's latest CPUs don't even have clear upper bounds on their frequency scaling logic. It's a big black box and the results can vary depending on the workload, temperature, silicon quality, phase of moon, etc.