skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The more straightforward explanation is that the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change, which differs markedly from what is the case in other developed countries. For example, Germany and France don’t have as strong of a reactionary anti-abortion movement because they never had anything like Roe that overruled the public opinion on abortion.

That's patently false. The majority of the progressive policies you speak of were legislated by actual left win (not liberals) governments that came to power after Ww II. These governments and coalitions did not have absolute majority. In most cases they did not reach 51% representation even, mostly ~20% to ~30%. In all of these countries there were conservative segments that staunchly opposed these policies and represented ~20% of the population. The rest of the population belonged to other parties that aligned more or less with differing sides of the argument. So considering how the popular opinion was more or less evenly split in these countries at the time, by your proposition they all have legislated those measures anti-democratically.

But this part of your argument requires special attention:

> the reactionary movement in America is due to the anti-democratic means American liberals have used to achieve social change

There is no way to democratically win over those who want to live in 200 years ago with the traditions and practices that belong to two thousand years ago, practicing child labor, segregation, treating women as 2nd class beings, denying actual natural reality and trying to enforce their own false belief as the truth. From conservative American states which just recently legalized child labor to delirious kooks who say that the Earth is flat and dying in the process of launching their own homemade rockets to prove or confirm that belief, the American anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists are exactly the same today like how they were back then. If the society of 19th century did not override them and made progress happen, they would successfully have prevented a lot of the social and even technological progress that you take as normal today. They were openly against technology and they wanted to stop or limit its progress. You can see the heritage of that anti-intellectualism in how Mormons live today. If this feels like an unlikely case, note that the religious fundamentalist segments of the society DID succeed in keeping out or limiting scientific and technological progress in most of the Middle East from 18th century until mid 1950s, and that is the reason why those regions have fallen behind the rest of the world this much.
It sounds like you’re giving a lot of human ‘occupations’ a whole lot of undeserved credit. There are stark differences between these two scenarios. Remixing existing ideas in an incredibly abstract way is not drudgery, it’s what a lot of people do, and get enjoyment out of.
I disagree, because instructing the device the circumstances to capture the image, whether it's a timer or motion or some other detector or your direct button press, that is not the only element of photography. They're saying the only creative elements of the work were done by machine.

If you asked me to write a poem about copyright law in the style of Shakespeare, is that something you can copyright, or a work derived from something you can copyright? I don't think so.

It's not that producing a prompt for a writer might not be a somewhat creative act itself, but that's not really recognized by copyright law. Ideas aren't copyright, works are. Colloquially people might agree that a work could be significantly derived from an idea, but I don't think that's how copyright law itself works.

Linux was written from scratch, copying no code from Unix and therefore is not a derived work or infringing on Unix copyright. Unquestionably it faithfully copied many ideas verbatim from Unix, the invention or development or discovery of those ideas were probably the most substantial creative contributions that Ritchie and Thompson had, and the code itself relatively mundane (though expertly written) by comparison. Those ideas/inventions are not classed as copyright works though.
Can reinforcement learning learn itself? A reply to ‘Reward is enough’ [pdf]
> people so removed from the tech that they fail to RTFM

Users in the current situation are presented with a big rainbow glowing button with a "FUTURE OF TECH" neon above it, and some small print memo tucked in the corner to explain why they shouldn't push the button.

Users should know better, for sure, but companies getting away with completely misleading names and grandiose statements regurgitated as is by the press should take 90% of the blame in my opinion.
They state this about the prompt engineering:

> While some prompts may be sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright, that does not mean that material generated from a copyrightable prompt is itself copyrightable.

The prompt is fully copyrightable but the output isn't.
2G is still there and isn't going anywhere.
Eventually you get to a point where the AI simply doesn’t know how to do something correctly. It can’t fix a certain bug, or implement a feature correctly. At this point you are left trying to do more and more prompt crafting… or you can just fix the problem yourself. If you can’t do it yourself, you’re screwed.

I wonder if the future will just be software hobbled together with shitty AI code that no one understands, with long loops and deep call stacks and abstractions on top of abstractions, while tech priests take a prompt and pray approach to eventually building something that does kind of what they want.

Or to hell with priests! Build some temple where users themselves can come leave prompts for the general AI to hear and maybe put out a fix for some app running on their tablets devices.
https://archive.ph/lDwPD
Being the copyright owner and being the author of something are very different things.
No I understand, by "the method" I meant a written work about how the operation is performed--apologies if that was too vague in my OP--not the literal method itself, as in the example of copy-writing a manual for riding a bike.
They state this in the document as well:

> While some prompts may be sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright, that does not mean that material generated from a copyrightable prompt is itself copyrightable.

It sounds like it would depend on the complexity of your prompt.
Careful! I’ve always felt that, as written, copyright should not apply to most software. Since only creative expressions may be copyrighted and functional expressions are not copyrightable, it’s very hard to match up the copyrightable portions of software with those that are not.

Requiring a declaration of what parts are and are not copyrightable for software would be a major shift in policy and require major changes in software methodology. It’s not a big jump to think that any output of AI of software code output would not be copyrightable, regardless of original origin.

Another example of “Software wants to be free.”
In a current environment, mortgage underwriting can be done by a drumming bunny.
Another bunny will bail them out.

Not a good example :-)
It is a fine thing to hold one’s HN comments in such regard. I’m not so ant-footed to impose anything but submit an offering for your consideration should you wish to geld such a lilly.
Man, do I feel you. Very similar here. Also, I often try different remedies that work a day or three and then stop immediately.
Given a few conditions I completely agree with this sentiment.

If this does indeed become world-changing, leading to AGI, then the best hope we have is that those with all the power are ethical. Giving it to everyone could be chaos. Giving an advantage to other superpowers would be terrifying.

Not ideal, but in their position I can't think of a better alternative. I am not saying I want anyone to have AGI btw, just that this is going to happen eventually (perhaps not via OpenAI/GPT) and getting there first may be game over for all other parties.
Hey, author here. Surprised to see this little library on the front page of HN.

The shadow DOM stuff was just added. Before I was just using <template>. So those tires are “unkicked” - if ShadowDOM doesn’t work for you, you can git revert that out and the library will work all the same (with less isolation)

It's "open source" as a reference. Just using it for myself. There aren't many docs beyond notes to myself. But the actual framework is a 90LoC JavaScript file that is an easy read.

You're welcome to kick the tires. If you like it I'd entertain PRs and stuff but it's such a small library forking is probably entirely reasonable to make your own flavor too.

It’s BSD licensed, but in the spirit of GPL, if you go and make it your own I’d appreciate if you reported back what worked and didn’t for you!

I use this for a subset of my consulting projects (boutique app development for small businesses). You’d help a large group of people downstream by sharing what you learn back <3
OpenAI should be nationalized immediately. The people who create this technology should be deterred, and otherwise detained. This is not substantially different from people experimenting with atom bombs in their homes.

Just as nation states are defined partly in terms of establishing a monopoly on violence within their borders. Nation states better establish a monopoly on deceptive and manipulative AI, which is what GPT is.
Nah. People who go to b school are just out of ideas in their mid 20s and have already run a marathon. (Joking, mostly)
Police beat a defenseless and peaceful woman (Iran? No)
Good. Works containing any material should not be copyrightable.
Is it? Wikipedia says that AT&T, Sprint and Verizon have already killed it, with only T-Mobile still going until next year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2G#Past_2G_networks

YMMV in other countries of course, but many networks worldwide have already phased it out or are going to soon.
We followed the same spec on the Google side (obviously). Our implementation of the request encapsulation/decapsulation for OHTTP is open sourced in Google Quiche.
https://github.com/google/quiche/tree/main/quiche/oblivious_...
AI will take the twitch streaming jobs too
I appreciate the effort, but it's a bit over my head with respect to react stuff.

For instance, I'm not sure what's meant by needing to merge props. I was under the impression that you could pass a subset of properties as an argument to setState, and all else would remain untouched.

I wasn't thinking of using HOC's. I've done a bit of react, but never touched them. I'm just thinking of reusing logic using the same techniques I use to reuse logic in code. React famously asserts "it's just javascript". Javascript provides a way of reusing logic, namely functions. If I have two class components that have the same logic in them, I'm imagining just putting that code in a function. This is not a sophisticated argument. There might be some reason that wouldn't work, but I don't know what it is.
Not at all. There’s literally nothing in this article that would go against ideas already covered in an introductory lecture in copyright law.
Authy and 1Password (2FA apps), and Yubikey (2FA hardware) seem to be popular choices.
Welp, turned off wi-fi calling but can't turn off VoLTE. I can set 3G, but since I'm on Fi, 3G won't work (T-mobile).. I get horrible 5G where I am, so it always goes to LTE.
I don’t think that question is very tough. It’s almost certainly copyright infringement. The method of copying doesn’t really matter.
Goldman’s Plan to Shore Up Silicon Valley Bank Crumbled
Isn't this what crypto is? It's the same sort of thing. At least sport's betting does not seem to have the same level or magnitude of scamming or fraud compared to crypto.
This is what I needed to get nested web components talking to each other and orchestrate their lifecycles. I was reusing the pattern over and over again (I do a lot of application development across a large number projects) so I turned it into a reusable file I can inject into the code bases I work on.
Why not code using 1s and 0s?
And it doesn't matter because anyone can use the AI to produce thousands of similar images with little effort.

All those tools have randomization so they don't produce the exact same image for the exact same prompt.

The value of an image produced by AI is very low because the cost to produce it is very low.

No point in committing federal fraud by falsely claim you made them.

> no one can dispute that

Of course I can dispute that.

I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision.

If all you can do is type AI prompts into a computer, good luck producing an actual painting.
Now they need to do this with Amazon.
Because of Hillary Clinton. Kidding. Kind of.
Pretty much all complaints about this stuff comes down to "the ads are EVERYWHERE" - what's stopping us from just banning advertisements like we did with cigarettes? Feels like a fine compromise.
As an AI artist who's been selling digital art, it really depends on whether you really care about "protecting" your work. I've seen my stuff stolen all over the place, NFTs minted, etc. Most sites will take the copycats down. Lack of copyright protection doesn't necessarily supersede individual marketplace policies.
> If you were dragged into a copyright suit by someone, you could probably try to prove that the work was AI generated as a defense? Not sure how effective it would be.

It would probably be similar to when wordperfect was sued for including famous painting as clipart. WordPerfect won using basically this defense (that no human creativity went into making the clip art) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Cor....
The system worked when we declared a bank not system relevant, then, on a weekend, declared a systemic exception to save it's depositors?

I mean, this comment almost wrote itself.
Rich Socher had this to say about the transition to neural networks: "Chris Manning also, to his credit – when I came to him and I had all these ideas from the computer vision world and neural networks, I still remember that meeting – he said, "Look, I don't know anything about neural networks right now either, but I'm willing to learn, and we'll get through it together." And obviously he knew everything there is about NLP in general." Adapt or die.
When I moved to Japan one of the sadder things for me in smaller towns was how many old people just spend their entire day playing pachinko. It seemed legitimately like the largest economic activity in some places.
> First, their customers actually prefer to use previously-flown boosters now

This is hilarious, and also an incredible testament to the work SpaceX has done in moving the rocket industry forward.
It's not a "reality" it's a leap so many HNers are making do to goldfish memories and lack of nuance.
Don't do this: you have a bug when "$1" is ''.

arg=
while [[ "$#" -gt 0 ]]; do
case "$1" in
--arg) shift; arg="$1" ;;
*) help; exit 1 ;;
esac
shift
done
> deceptive and manipulative AI

I disagree, GPT and its variations are merely tools, which can be used by malicious actors to spread misinformation or cause harm.

It is imperative for nation states to understand the technology, in order to create policies that enable ethical and productive usage of AI.
In the same way that the person using ChatGPT chose the prompt?
If there's one thing Microsoft is known for, it's "spearheading proper regulatory and policy systems"!
Isn’t that just a more efficient implementation of the old TV producers + Nielsen ratings model?
>We have plenty of technologies whose development has been stopped via collective agreement: nuclear proliferation, biological weapons, space weapons.

Last time I checked, there was no agreement to stop nuclear proliferation at all. What do you think North Korea has been doing all this time? And Russia just decided to tear up one of the arms control treaties it was signatory to.

At this point, putting society under the control of AI is probably safer than letting humans continue to run things.
Like TomTom?
For what it's worth, we do think there is also a lot of value in building a deep vertical integration in tooling so that it can take advantage of React's unique features. A little bit about this here: https://react.dev/learn/start-a-new-react-project#bleeding-e...
Not just welfare for the stadium, but sports betting means more literal welfare for people who can afford it least. Sports betting takes money from the least successful and funnels it off in the worst, least productive way possible.
We thought AI will take out the mechanical and manual jobs first that don't need intellectual capabilities, but only repetition. Who knew AI will first learn to write poems, novels and code.
esbuild-config
Good and bad code only matters if someone is looking.

If you assume nobody is looking, you will often write bad code. If you assume that someone is looking, possibly including Future You, you will aim to write good code.
Can a heat pump be used to save the heat and use only during working hours?
Pretty mind-blowing if true. That is an unbelievably basic mistake to make.
I don't see programming going away for this reason. Think about it, if you have to carefully describe what you want to do to an AI - you are just writing a program. Only a program is deterministic and will do what you tell it to, whereas an AI may or may not.

The future that I see, coding and AI are divided into two camps. The one is what we would call "script kiddies" today - people who don't understand how to write software, but know enough to ask the right questions and bodge what they get together into something that mostly works. The other camp would be programmers who are similar to programmers today, but use AI to write boilerplate for them, as well as replace Stack Overflow.
Running Rust Kernel in Deepnote
Assuming I buy the bond today, the two accounting treatments agree (correctly) that in 2033, the bond is worth $1000 2033-dollars. The problem is that when interest rates increase, a 2033-dollar becomes worth relatively less than a 2023-dollar. So that agreement in future says nothing about the economic value of the bond today.

That's the loss that took down the SVB, and it's a real economic loss. If the SVB's depositors behaved like the simplest textbook model, then as soon as short-term Treasury rates increased, they'd insist on correspondingly increased interest on their deposits. The cost of that extra interest would be the SVB's loss--the cash flows in from the bonds stay the same, but the cash flows out to the depositors would need to increase.

In reality, I understand that depositors are generally "stickier" than that, leaving their funds at their existing banks even when bank interest rates increase slower than Treasury rates. That gave the SVB some hope that they could earn their way out of the hole, passing the loss slowly to their depositors over time by paying below-market interest rates. That's the behavior that HTM accounting roughly models. The SVB's depositors had no economically rational incentive to accept that though, and they didn't.
You know the most important part in "prisoners dilemma" is the prison.
Sigh. util-linux's getopt solved this years and years ago.

https://manpages.debian.org/testing/util-linux/getopt.1.en.h...
If the government is serious about increasing our safety and security, it would ban FB, and prevent Zuckerberg from owning/operating any social media services given his well-documented track record of malevolence.

People don't trust Zuckerberg. People don't trust FB, with well-documented good reason. The Cambridge Analytica situation alone should classify him as a domestic terrorist, where terrorism is defined by the US Department of State itself in 2003 as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
Applying color balancing in photoshop doesn't make the original image taken by a photographer the product of a machine.

Laws are not black and white.

The whole point of lawsuits and lengthy opinions by judges is to have a nuanced interpretation of the law.

If the whole movie would be generated by a computer from a single sentence then yes, it wouldn't be copyrightable.

But as long as producing movie involves human screen writers, human directors, human performers, human camera operators etc. they are obviously creative works of those humans and therefore copyrightable.
We can only play very well with the stuff that works by the React rules. It's the only direction that it makes sense go into, IMO — we are exploring a particular paradigm, and we might as well squeeze everything we can out of it. So to reap its benefits we also need to work within its model. We do have escape hatches for the other stuff but this is exactly the reason we're cautious about recommending something that is in a different direction than our model. At some point we want to rely on some property, and if it's not there, it just doesn't work.
It's a straightforward idea in my mind and I'm always happy to see people talking about it.
I think that the answer they want to say is, “it probably does”, but they don’t want to say it and cause a big disruption to commerce until the courts intervene.
What about “gambling” in the financial markets? Want that $1.50 call on GameStop earnings? Bets come in all shapes and sizes, including Wall Street bets.
Pure speculation, but I would guess that the interfaces to baseband are not particularly hardened, so an attack on the phone from the baseband might be trivial. Or worse, the baseband might have a trusted channel to launch arbitrary code.
Pornhub Owner MindGeek Sold to Canada's Ethical Capital
Do they manufacture them 'for free' too?

Launches are never free. Cheaper maybe, but free is a vast overstatement of what SpaceX is doing.
I would argue that location and angle to film are analogous to specifying that you want a poem (as opposed to an essay) about copyright law (as opposed to quantum mechanics) in the style of William Shakespeare (as opposed to John Milton).

Basically, those are very broad parameters specified, and the machine is the one that decides to produce the output. You aren't even picking the timing or the subject or likely even the focal length. The machine is doing that based on its algorithms (and with autofocus) even the focal length.
Also, AI requires we keep the entire power grid and supply chain running.

This comic summaries is wonderfully. ;)

https://i.redd.it/w3n8acy7q6361.png
> Because it's been possible to curtail the use of non-software technology.

Curtail but not stop.

There’s an opioid epidemic going on, gun violence is a thing, cigarettes still keep killing people and drones are becoming quite efficient killers in their own right.

People still cheat on their taxes, drive drunk, pirate movies &etc. I could go on for days.

Oh, and the whole “illegal number” thing, how’d that work out?
There's not enough "better places" for everyone.
Was/is a way to differentiate a product from foreign (at a time Japan, now China) made products. That because it was made here (if you’re American which I assume readers here are and if not then are European and are aware of American culture because they imitate it daily) it is better and if not then at least supporting “your kind”.

So made by human or w/e is a similar concept.
I was mostly being as facetious and dismissive as the op, their take is so old fashioned I honestly wonder if they're doing a bit.
From farm to factory: the unstoppable rise of American chicken (2020)
If you increase interest rates so fast, liquidity issue gets systemic, everybody understands it.

If Credit Suisse can go down, any bank can go down.
But I already have the march update?, it arrived on grapheneOS for the Pixel 6 pro