skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In the 3rd security level, with scripts fully disabled, TAILS is one of the most robust solutions I'm aware of, with Whonix deserving a honorary mention.

Tails and Whonix have different use cases. Whonix is meant to be a persistent OS that provides anonymity. If you're installing an anonymous OS to your laptop as your daily driver, Whonix is your pick.

Tails is amnesic, meaning once shut down it forgets everything. Tails runs in RAM only, so everything is destroyed on shutdown. Should your Tails disk be confiscated, the only thing that can be found is that Tails is installed. If you want to use an anonymous OS without digital evidence Tails is the better option.
How will people pay for anything when the power goes out in their city for a week? Happens every year in a decent chunk of the world.
> a very optimized stitching of code it previously saw.

I have seen this line repeated many times, but I never saw it actually explained. A lookup table is dumb and easy to understand/interpret. Deep models are not that. They are also not a linear interpolation of … something. What exactly is the claim being made here? Yes, deep models don’t generalize too well on ood data. How does this make them a “very optimized” lookup table?
Yes, because renewables are not a serious threat to fossil fuel companies and the transition period is long enough that they can pivot into the space. Nuclear fission on the other hand would be enormously disruptive. Culturally, the anti nuclear movement has a lot of links to oil companies [1].

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
India, has during the covid lockdown silently developed and implemented world's largest National digital payment system called ['UPI'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface). Although, India is far from cashless, but this year the amount of money transacted through UPI crossed 1 billion USD for the first time, even though most of the transactions through UPI are low value transactions.
Now-a-days, it's really common to see your typical vegetable vendor (basically a single person establishment, selling his goods in a mobile platform with 4 wheels) display a UPI QR code for payment. Google Pay in India has integrated their systems with UPI and are among one of the biggest payment services.
I interpreted it as them saying only a tiny, tiny fraction of Copilot completions violate copyright.
I think we need a law that states cashless (in-person) PoS systems may only exist iff the cashless "currency" used is void of any fees (both for buyer and seller). Not to be confused with current systems that are cash or card.
No they are just going to let other people commit crimes and claim they will never do it...

Do you really believe Microsoft employees aren't going to be using this, illegally or unofficially?

"Yes! We (Microsoft) aren't doing anything illegal, but we are going to turn a blind eye to everyone using it illegally as we directly benefit from it - and here's the kicker! Our employees are legally liable not us evil laughter all the way to the bank"

Of course the legal execs aren't using it, this is classic Microsoft (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).
I see this basic logic in almost AI ethics threads, and it starts with a big assumption: "humans learn from copyrighted source material without copyright violation". This then gets tenuously extended to "ai also learns, so it must not be in violation of copyright law".

The first assumption is highly flawed though. Humans routinely do violate copyright law. Plagiarism is a huge problem in many sectors; un-cited direct copies of people's work in violation of fair use is a regular every day occurrence in the human world. It doesn't matter if you memorized the source material or if you transcribed it or if you copy and pasted it, if it isn't your source material and is someone else's, you've committed a violation of the law. Learning to produce original work and reproducing someone else's work is not the same thing. If an AI is ingesting and perfectly reproducing someone else's copyrighted works, it is in violation of copyright law in the same way a human would be if they reproduce someone else's copyrighted works.
Free speech was not "envisaged in the constitution." Free speech is an unalienable right of men, which our Creator endowed us with.
Regarding 2, from the article:

> People think you can’t throw GPUs at solving an energy shock but in the medium term you really can if those GPUs are used by civil and chemical engineers and not to mine shitcoins.

I suspect 1 is usually missing because the obvious conclusion is that excess (and increasing) production capacities will mean people have more choices regarding their lifestyles. If you want walkable, go for it!
I like to joke that if you code while listening to rammstein. everything ends up as a first person shooter.
Pentagon considering paying for Musk’s Starlink network in Ukraine
You definitely can.

https://a.co/d/imNpbBS
> If you can do it at scale without damaging the company’s reputation

Everyone I know who’s worked for Amazon has said the money was great but everything else absolutely sucked. And they all held out doing whatever they had to in order to get by until they vested, and we’re instantly out.

I don’t think Amazon has a good reputation.
The thing that I noticed, at least in Italy, is that young people seem believe all the propaganda about cashless society: they really think that it is about fighting tax evasion. I am sincerely afraid of an entity that can control all of your money if you're not "good" enough: how not-good I have to be before they forbid me from living.
I’m sure they will too! And I’m not being facetious in saying it.

Walkable, bikeable cities are human cities.

(And they’re also the kind of cities that mobility aids like scooters can thrive in.)
The Microchip brand micro in the arduino wouldn't be the right choice here. Something like the TI MSP430 would, it runs on very very low power requirements and has sleep functions that have insanely low power draw.
Google "Is ___ racist?" (inserting almost any term: gardening, math, science, climate change, doesnt matter) and you will always find academic and mainstream opinion-piece proof that it's racist against "minorities".

The lines are much blurrier than you are brushing off, especially now that we have post-structuralist definitions of everything. Do you trust the interpretation to be limited to obvious extreme things when people can't agree what terms like woman, inflation, recession, etc mean?

Or, think about what happens when a political party you don't like can use the same legal framework you built with good intentions in ways you probably won't like.
Perhaps not, but since nobody has ever tried something else on a large scale, and there seems to be an almost taboo on speculating on those forms of society due to accusations of Utopianism.... what are we left with?

I, for one, am not willing to support a revolution without a plan for the day after. It may be an OK thing to be an anti-capitalist, but if one defines desired outcomes only in terms of what not to be, it's pretty damn uninspired.
>The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions

I get that using function names is an obvious way to get copilot to generate contested code, but has someone tried to get copilot to generate contested code in a way that users might sincerely be using copilot for productivity ? How do you get to the claim it is the "only way" ?
Well, that saved me from having to read Schopenhauer.
Other stuff too if you want to look around, I did a quick and dirty solar system a couple of decades ago, one with texture maps where possible, and quickly discovered that Pluto was all lumpy .... simply because tessellating a sphere that far out quickly runs into FP resolution issues if the Sun is the origin
And? People are allowed to say horrible things. I can join the forum with none of the stuff I deem "horrible", you join the forum with none of the stuff you deem "horrible", everybody is happy!
> which is what copilot has been show to sometimes do

In those cases it seems that humans are already copying code without also propagating licenses appropriately. LLMs are more likely to memorize things which occur a lot (and I'd bet rare things that are representative of some conceptual axis).

The main examples presented so far, Davis and Carmack, have the property of having been copied a lot. The generative model is only surfacing an existing pattern of ignoring attribution. Sort of like the code-gen version of generating bigotry if appropriately prompted.

I'll also note that this pattern of retrievable memorizing of copyrighted and sensitive material is present in GPT-3 too and not just for code. As the situation is equivalent, a lawsuit should address the concerns of non-programmers too.
The amount of radiation from regular flying probably has no risk as well.

Aircrew have higher risk for certain types of cancers, but it's not clear if radiation plays a role in that. And of course they spend way more time on air than any regular airline customer.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/aircrew/cancer.html
Why no alias linking or clone? Is it technically impossible?
"Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems."

I think you are, though. You have to automate the justice as well, traditional courts can't keep pace. You'll just end up with more automated DMCA-style takedowns, not less.
You can also become a supporting member and donate directly, which is what I did: https://join.codeberg.org/
Your definitions are very interesting there mate. In some contexts, yep, what's often called a rule of thumb (for example, sparkies use a multitude of <X>-hand rules[0][1] and call them rule of thumb, because you know, there's a thumb involved) are passed down.

But people are entirely able to derive their own rules of thumbs, if we hark to the common definition that a rule of thumb is a principle/procedure/process derived from practical experience.

For example, I rapidly developed a rule of thumb when dating post-divorce that any person who said "I hate drama" in their dating profile is in actual fact the source of any drama, but it took me a couple of disastrous dating attempts to develop that rule of thumb.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule#Electromagneti...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming%27s_left-hand_rule_for...
AI image generators are clearly not a market substitute for images, they are a tool that can be used to create market substitutes, but not themselves one.
You are saying that if someone takes free software and sells it (or distributes with the intention to monetize that service through ads) then that makes software not free? I disagree.

In the context of this discussion, there is a clear distinction between developers/companies that build truly free products vs free products that are intended to be monetized through selling user data or showing ads.

A service that tracks and sells user data in exchange for free downloads is a different product, has nothing to do with the original code/product that it might be distributing.
https://miscircuitos.com/lab-characterization-of-the-solar-c...
Because the scale is different.

You have a mechanism that can regurgitate (digest, remix, emit) without attribution all of the world's code and all of the world's art.

With these systems, you're giving everyone the ability to plagiarize everything, effortlessly and unknowingly. No skill, no effort, no time required. No awareness of the sources of the derivative work.

My work is now your work. Everyone can "write" my code, without ever knowing I wrote it, without ever knowing I existed. Everyone can use my hard work, regurgitated anonymously, stripped of all credit, stripped of all attribution, stripped of all identity and ancestry and citation.

It's a new kind of use not known (or imagined?) when the copyright laws were written.

Training must be opt in, not opt out.

Every artist, every creative individual, must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to having their hard work regurgitated anonymously by Copilot or Dall-E or whatever.

If you want to donate your code or your painting or your music so it can easily be "written" or "painted", in whole or in part, by everyone else, without attribution, then go ahead and opt in.

But if an author or artist does not EXPLICITLY OPT IN, you can't use their creative work to train these systems.

All these code/art washing systems, that absorb and mix and regurgitate the hard work of creative people must be strictly opt in.

That's how the law needs to be.
When someone presents some information publicly, copying it is a natural right. Copyright can only be legitimized as the state sponsoring short-term monopolies in select areas to subsidize industries that benefit the public (from receiving the said subsidies). Obviously, a technology that let’s the public creative the desired output with little cost is the sort of thing that can eliminate the need for such subsidization in the first place.
Or that the professor has a legitimate concern, and a lot of people in the comments here don't have any code being stolen and are just afraid of Copilot.

It can be both things. (I'm not endorsing either view, just trying to clarify.)
Ask HN: Why Are Computers 2-Bit?
That reminds me of a short sci-fi story I read about an alien invasion, in which humans were losing horribly until we learned about their legal system and sued them into submission
On what business model exactly?
When they were doing the original scans the resolution was set by the diameter of the turbines, the logic being that they would probably be the only thing intact if it hit the water at speed.
I dislike this mentality. Sure, there are a lot of things that were "more fun" when the internet was new / smaller, but losing the "intimate and cozy" aspects was the cost of bringing the internet to the masses.

The expansion of internet access literally allowed me to speak to our family on another continent. Sorry I'm not sorry my presence made "being on the internet no longer special"...
You can buy an unlocked Android phone for $50 unsubsidized.

There are plenty of places that offer cheap phones for the poor

https://www.reviews.org/mobile/how-to-get-free-government-ce...
Use Rails' Hotwire front end. It's pretty productive and easy for a solo dev.
I'm pretty sure I can count the number of words in Harry Potter without breaking copyright law.

It is absolutely not clear when statistical models stops counting ngrams and starts making a derived works.
This reminds me of pirating music. Lawyers tried futilely to stop it, but if something is technically possible people will find a way to keep doing it. Maybe you set some legal precedent on fair use with AI, but it won't prevent the real world usages if there's a benefit to the technology.
> I only now realized that by using Apple Pay, they get at least my name and email address

This is not true
> “That’s part of the reason for making the big effort to document it this time — cause she may not be there the next time.”

Sorry for off-topic but what is the meaning of "she" word in this sentence, are there any grammar rule which allows such feminitives?
Housing will always be a competitive market so long as location matters. Access to education and health care are themselves some of reasons why location matters, and a home in an urban core is priced higher than one in a far remote community.

Even in communist countries you find competition for housing as a result of the intrinsic value of location.
Do the same copyright issues arise with AI-generated videos learned from Shutterstock?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33239706

https://waxy.org/2022/09/ai-data-laundering-how-academic-and...
Rest in Peace, Jim.

Old time is still a' flying. Remnants of a gone era are themselves passing.
We need to apply Chesterton's fence [1] in situations like this.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence
I think if copilot is heavily restricted to three line code samples, perhaps I could agree with this.

The example cited by the OP is not a three line code sample - if you've ever done matrix coding, you know that sparse matrix operations are not simple.

Sure you can reduce it to a function call, but then you have library usage instead of code theft.

I think actually perhaps this is a way copilot could ethically move forward - instead of lifting code verbatim if it merely suggested libraries and approaches "here is an example of sparse matrix filtering and some libraries which do it", that would be both useful and ethical, presuming it does not obscure the license.
And why is Micky Mouse not in the public domain as of 2022? There lies in the root of all these questions. The system is not designed to benefit people, but rent-seeking.
The trillion dollar figure is a bit of a stretch and includes a lot of stuff that didn't need to happen or was double counted.

Less motivated reasoning gives about $300bn which would still be enough to easily replace every coal and oil plant in the country with renewables (as well as half of the gas).
What are you talking about? The reason why electric stoves don't bring the grid down is because it is designed with this load in mind. Adding electric heating to the grid is an additional load, because people won't stop cooking when it's cold, nor would they stop heating if they're hungry.

That's why experts are warning people to not suddenly switch from gas to electric heating this winter.
According to the article, they plan to train private models. They claim to have done R&D that makes them more efficient at training models.
The author seems to be some kind of weirdo, fantasizing about "totalitarianism" while meaning reasonable Covid measures. The addendum about this renders the software non-free.

I wouldn't trust this software, as much as I wouldn't trust software from QAnon, Putin or North Korea.
I assume they meant “capitalism as it is currently implemented”. In any case, not like capitalism is suggested as being under threat - just that an economic model based on competitive markets will have a lot of issues with fairly allocating resources to all individuals, instead accumulating most of it to a few industry leaders.

Something will have to change.
Time for a new open source license specifically allowing fair use for machine learning?
> because if the local sheriff knew who you were they could vouch to the local DMV and you’d be good to go.

This was never the case in any large city.
If you figured out all those variables, they would have to be legally enforced by a legal authority -- meaning there wouldn't be a purpose to use an NFT as a "blockchain authority" anymore. They're fundamentally useless.
The place you mentioned isn't an aggregator, but I'd be curious if they have less per transaction costs if you just call the store, ask for a pizza, and give them cash. I've seen places that seem to value it, and a couple that seemed weirdly hostile to the entire idea someone might not want to be a literal slave to the Saudis or whoever keeps propping up services like Uber that are unprofitable and often flout local regulations. (I think)
Ships are typically referred to as she. It's easily googled and brings up articles like this one (which I have not read).

https://emmacruises.com/the-reason-ships-are-she/
Personally, I draw the line at corporations profiting from the derived works. But if companies want charge for tools that make these models easier to interact with, then that seems pretty reasonable.
SMS and app-based confirmation codes, phone number verification requirements, app-exclusive features, QR codes to see the menu, etc etc.
Yeah, but that doesn’t matter does it? That’s like saying, “Well, your honor, most of my cars aren’t stolen vehicles.”
I think you misunderstood my comment then (or how these tools work IRL)... because I'm not saying that it's even worthy of a court case in the vast majority of cases. So why would you need to automate such a thing?

And I don't even see how an automated DMCA system could exist because I doubt they'd win monetary damages in court over a 'stolen' function or two (or detect it in most commercial applications in the first place).

Regardless a single class action should be enough to make Microsoft either shut down their project or adapt (via whistleblowers, leaked code, public repos, etc). And regardless if they don't adapt by investing in the possible solutions here, an OSS project could take it's place eventually and the courts wouldn't even be a useful solution.

Ideally a capital-backed company will help solve this, with the obvious legal incentives that already exist. But even if it doesn't this isn't going away.
I can see where you're coming from if this is a piece of music made to stand in its own right, but you gotta remember it was composed to complement what you are seeing onscreen and the dialogue that is part of a larger story. It's not supposed to be the star of the experience, but support for it. If Broken was the soundtrack to the movie, it would suck, as much as I love that album.
That's an interesting philosophical progression...
I agree it might not relate to business failure but I’ll disagree on the impact to execution and I’m surprised that you’ve come to an alternate conclusion.

Maybe I’m just a really shitty coder but I’ve yet to be able to write more than ~50 lines of non trivial code bug free. To be fair though, all the research on the topic I’ve read seems to bear out that that’s the typical quality. Honestly I’m normally skeptical of such lines of research but this has typically been work that’s replicated across companies with real world data sets so while not necessarily conclusive, directionally it seems correct. With tests I can verify that all the pieces will integrate correctly. I’ve found the cost of maintaining well written tests and code to be minimal vs the time spent on everything else (eg I’m just gluing complex components together instead instead of at the same time figuring out why the overall piece isn’t working). It’s also an easy spot to add small experiments of behavior when debugging (eg “is this component behaving correctly under these conditions”) whereas if you don’t have any tests or they’re all very high level, then the cost of debugging grows rapidly.

For what it’s worth, I’ve worked on a number of complex r&d and engineering projects and have always observed the team moves more quickly with a good test suite, but I’ve also seen not good test suites that slow things down. Maybe it’s possible you’ve mostly observed bad test suites?

I highly recommend Brett Victor’s talks about what development should look like. I think the main problem with tests is that they don’t let you mutate the runtime at will / see values inline / visualize what’s happening. I think that’s the next big step that would really clinch development to be much better.
Give me a break. Did you even read the license? You read that it is restricted to "the service". That service cannot be copilot, because it didn't even exist when most people agreed to the license. Moreover the license explicitly states they cannot use the code to distribute in any other way or sell it. So if anything they are violating their own agreement.

Also MS themselves don't even claim that training is covered by their terms of service, they claim it is fair use.
Would Pangea have resulted in less tidal locking due to less resistance to the flow of the oceans? I would think ice ages also slowed things down.
What if the far more common occurs, and the C level execs raid the company for their own short term interests?

Or isolation of the board from information at all levels of the company leads to poor decision framing?