skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whether or not copyright applies at all to model training is an entirely open question, and where rulings have come down, it's likely closer to these situations being fair use (e.g. the Google Book's case, which was ruled transformative and not a direct replacement for the works in question).

The reality is, these models don't copy or distribute anything directly, which makes applying copyright a bit of a stretch. Many people feel like it is a use that should have some sort of IP law applying to it, which is why I think there's some chance that courts or legislators will decide to screw the letter of existing law and just wedge new interpretations in, but it's not super simple: they'd have to thread the needle and not make things like search illegal, and that's tricky. Besides that, these models are out there, they're useful, and if they're ruled infringing they'll just be distributed illegally anyways.

I don't envy the people who will have to decide these cases, I suspect what's better for the world overall is to leave the law as-is and clarify that fair use holds (nobody will stop publishing content or code just because AI is slurping it up, a few weirdos like the article author excepted), but there are going to be a lot of pissed off people either way...
Directionality makes it less inclined to be "maxed out". If you have infrastructure ground stations, and they're built for 5 satellites overhead, you can get 5 times the spectral density total throughput if there's 5 satellites overhead.

> which effectively halve the available bandwidth

I disagree (and I'm not sure where this idea is coming from-- do you think they use the same spectrum or something?) I think they effectively "add" bandwidth for the system by allowing satellites that do not have saturated uplinks to "share" capacity. E.g. a satellite which is mostly over the ocean but can see a ground station can now be more useful.
So it just happens that hippy values and western greed kowtowing to authoritarian regime values purely for the sake of money happen to be exactly the same thing. A story too convenient for my taste but everyone is free to believe whatever they want.
It seems we have reached the point in our existence as a society where it is time to take a stand.

Who are we? What values do we share? What behavior are we willing to tolerate? How much will it cost us to allow a company or an individual to compromise our principles?

A lot of people, far too many in fact, allow greed to define themselves. Profit above all else.

Those people should be universally vilified and removed from positions of power or influence.

Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh or as Porky Pig. Take your pick. If he is offended then that is simply a sign of his own personal weakness, a character defect of which we all know he has many. Pity the weak bastard that can't take criticism and never, ever put them in a position of power.
If there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that younger me had no business telling older me what he should or shouldn't do.
Homographs.
A Comparison of Neovim Distros
I feel that people should be relocated.
If sidewalks could be wider it wouldn't be as much of a concern. Narrow sidewalks are to accommodate car parking more often than not. I would rather see less of that in a city centre.
Have you tried Proton on Linux? The days of needing Windows for gaming are over now.

It's all thanks to Valve's work on the Steam Deck, but it works just as well for desktop Linux too. All you have to do is install Steam and then enable Proton for the Windows games you want to play. Some of my games even work better on Linux under Proton than they do on Windows. For your specific games, I see people saying Diablo works and Blood Bowl is marked as compatible.
Thanks for tip! We are flooded by these also in Prague, can't walk normal on sidewalk, as if cyclists riding on sidewalks was not bad enough.
Meanwhile here I am in the Netherlands (semi-rural I'd say), having two fiber modems installed because we have 2 competing fiber networks here. At least one of them goes to 2500/2500 for about 75 eur a month. Probably it'll go much higher in the future.
Being banned would make it quite unwelcome
> I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors.

In essence, copyleft licenses are exactly that. They oblige the author of a derived work to publish the changes to all users under the same terms. The original authors tend to be users. So, a license which would grant this directly to the original authors would end up providing the same end result since the original authors would be both allowed to and reasonably expected to distribute the derived work to their users as well.

This aligns with the reason why some people publish their work under copyleft licenses: You get my work, for free, and the deal is that if you find and fix bugs then I get to benefit from those fixes by them flowing back to me. Obviously as long as you only use them privately you are not obliged to anything, the copyleft author gives you that option, but once you publish any of this, we all share the results.

That's the spirit here and trying to argue around that with technicalities is disingenuous. That's what Copilot does since it ignores this deal.
As someone who regularly encounters American companies trying to skimp on hiring professional translators when they REALLY should, with disastrous outcomes:

Good.
Eight Things to Know about Large Language Models [pdf]
That's as logical as women retiring earlier than men. /s
> reflection, imagination, and coordination

Those are buzzwords that mean absolutely anything you want them to mean.

"While reflecting on the future he desired for the company he is CEO of, Holz imagined how much more money he could make by keeping Midjourney available in China and coordinated the necessary actions to make it impossible to produce content about Xi Jinping"
I mean, doesn't the concept of a free society apply to private corporations as well? The government is not restricting you; the private company is exercising its right to run its business according to its own free will. The principle of a free society suggests that "if you don't like the company's policy, find another one or create your own." Is that wrong?
Developer on Sandbox here, if you were still interested in using sandbox for this, I’d love to hear more about the scenario you were working on and what roadblocks you hit.

Feel free to reach out (krithikrao at microsoft dot com).
In case you haven't seen it yet, the term "stochastic parrot" got introduced by this paper [1] titled "On the danger of stochastic parrots". A related paper [2] titled "Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data" got awarded Best Paper by the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics and it's also easier to read.

Those two papers are critical of LLMs and discuss what researchers believe that they can and cannot do. I don't say that you need to agree with them but I think reading them should give you a good primer on why some researchers are not as excited as HN users are.

[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922

[2] https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.463/
"I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid"

How long exactly did you study the issue? It is very complex.
> While this can happen with a bike, it's much less often - as the effort and room required to pedal doesn't lend well to instantaneous impulse, nor the "sneak through a tight gap" temptation, it's all simply louder and slower.

That's interesting. The scooters I've tried here in Paris (Lime) were extremely anemic. They also only have token brakes which, apart from skidding, don't really do anything.

Therefore, my reasoning was that since they take forever to pick up speed, and can't reliably slow down, people will tend to take chances and slalom around "obstacles".

The local bike sharing schemes have electric models that accelerate much harder than the scooters do, and as far as I'm aware, they don't have the level of traffic issues scooters do.
explorer here: https://evanthebouncy.github.io/chatgpt-svg/
Thanks, this was very useful!

I imagine government contract suppliers, VC-funded startups, and Non-profit orgs - together - make up a decent chunk of all software companies.

I'm curious what you'd say about all the remaining software companies, namely the ones operating in a "traditional" sense (I can't think of a better word, but I suspect you know what I mean... your typical B2C or B2B for-profit bootstrapped business).

Is the latter group of companies' profit driven by sales and sales alone? Or is there something else that a business owner could focus on to drive profit?

As you can tell I'm still trying to unpack the OP's point above ^_^
The problem is, dependency management isn't a solved problem. I was nodding my head in agreement at the part where the author mentions that pyenv compiles Python from source when it installs. If you try to figure out the reason behind this, it becomes obvious that the only one that makes any sense at all is that distributing binaries, in a secure way, is hard for open-source projects to manage. After all, bandwidth costs money, someone has to pay for the build server, someone has to pay for the data transfer bandwidth. And, do you trust that person to not be a rogue actor? It's easier to pull down the source, on the end user's machine, cross your fingers for good luck, and compile it.

We also haven't figured out how to incentivize maintaining backward-compatibility. 99.9% of the time when some library updates, and stops working with language version X, it's using some hot new feature of the language. Usually just because the library author thought it would be cool or more elegant. The entire software world needs to update now, because someone left-padded us for elegance.
Not so simple. No ridiculing Xi makes the platform less comfortable for people in other countries like the US. We expect freedom to ridicule and if that’s not available on a platform because the owner prefers to cater to a specific dictator, then we may be less likely to use it. I might still use it , I might not.

But bowing to a dictator who says you can’t say Winnie the Pooh anymore seems like a one-sided, pro-dictator decision.

It has nothing to do with the CEO wanting to make people in China comfortable - surely he wants people in the US to feel comfortable too if that was the case?

I suppose you can’t have both. So siding with the dictator was the choice made? Bold move cotton.
There are more than 3!

N acetyl cysteine is a supplement that does.... A lot! But it's also a glutamate mop.

And what does it turn into after it combines with that glutamate?

Good question!

Glutathione. Amazing.

There's a lot more to it than that of course, glutamatergic dysfunction and, well, nearly any neurotransmitter is so complicated (this is more a general statement to the comment thread readers at this point).

I had not known about the diffusion of glutamate as an energy source! That's very cool and news to me. I'd like to learn more about that at some point soon.
Yep, it's a significant contributor to car culture as once you have a car you start using it for trips that could be done using walking. And everybody needs a car to be mobile on Shabbat unless they can pay for taxis with a surcharge or are actually religious.
Copenhagen banned rental scooters from the city centre.

For some reason, people were finishing their ride and leaving the scooter in the bike lane, across the sidewalk, across a pedestrian crossing etc.

The rental companies were intentionally blocking the sidewalk in the city centre, arranging the scooters in neat lines overnight. Presumably for visibility/advertising.

All this happens to a much lesser extent with the SV-style ebike rental companies, though it's still not unusual to see those parked badly.

It happens rarely with the manual bike rental company. I think they make you photograph the parked bike when you finish, so they are almost always in a bike rack.
Unfortunately there seems to be a bipartisan political consensus against the most profitable and useful elements of the New Deal (WPA, TVA, REA, CWA) which would be almost mandatory to go whole hog on this kind of infrastructure proposal, and as we've learned over the last 40 years public-private partnerships are thin gruel as a replacement.
Not trying to Ad Hominem, but why should anyone care that university freshman is moving away from Github? This is essentially blogspam.
There is absolutely a way to do this but the new money coming in wants to keep as much revenue as possible to "preserve" valuation. We have already significantly cut revenue (~30%) last year in order to scale back costs. And the other concern is the more revenue you cut the more of a hole you have to climb out of to eclipse your preference stack. And cutting revenue while you are also trying to sell the company is going impact valuation.
Yup, and this contrived conundrum is proof positive of a truth: all code is licensed before the ToS is agreed to, whether published or not. Licenses override ToS, which means that Microsoft needs to remove all code on github either due to ToS violations, since their ToS directly contradicts all licenses, or because the licenses contradict their ToS.

What it comes down to is that the Github ToS is illegal.
> Lots of people complain that they don’t allow porn. But, as a result, a millions of people who are not just horny teenage boys enjoy hanging out on the server sharing and discussing art that is not just pics of sexy women all day every day.

I don't think that follows - boobs being allowed doesn't stop people from creating SFW works as well.
Why is eating steak a sufficient reason but developing such life-changing technology is not?

We already know that BCIs work and bring enormous benefits to people with epilepsy, ADHD, etc. There's no question about that. The only problem is, and that's what Neuralink aims to solve, that it's a very invasive procedure, so it's not being done often. But we know it works.
> If code with a license, say GPL, goes out somewhere else, by someone else

If the code is GPL licensed, you can't relicense it under a non-FOSS license like you're talking about

> Don't they then have to remove that code?

Yes, if code gets uploaded whose license is incompatible with Microsoft's terms, they probably do have to remove it.

> Now imagine this: I write some code, license it, but don't publish it yet. It's licensed. Then I upload it to github. Does the license supersede the ToS? Doesn't github have to remove the code as a ToS violation

Again, yes, they probably do, and they also probably have an obligation to clean their training data of it. However, if you're the copyright holder of the code and you agree to their ToS before uploading, they might make the case that you agreeing to their ToS does grant them the license to use it in training data.
The internet companies and apps do exactly nothing to prevent kids using them.

It's a tough problem, because the alternative is requiring ID validation for every online service you use, which is the wrong path too.
I don’t think that’s a comparable dynamic. Censoring your users to avoid being murdered is much more sympathetic than censoring your users to protect your Chinese market access.
That's very generous of you. Don't get angry though if I go ahead and re-publish all your code with your name replaced by mine. That's exactly what you are allowing me to do with such a license.
Does last mile electrification serve every property in the US? Or even every road frontage?
Similar would also be illegal in Thailand under Lèse-majesté. Political satire of the old King in particular would be unwelcoming to many Thais which held him in an esteem above such things.

Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it wouldn't also be culturally unacceptable and alienating.
You know it's good when at the end you're thinking: already?

Thank you. That was really nice.
If we go by how many people explain open source, you would be right, but if we go by how people who actually know what their licenses are supposed to do explain open source, then no. You give a license for a specific reason. One might be to allow others to copy, but there is usually a condition, and that is to leave the license information intact. If we go further towards free/libre software licenses like GPL or AGPL, then we have more conditions to it. For example that, if you distribute software using that code, you need to distribute the source of your software as well (a bit imprecise).

If you want to get a better picture of the situation, read up on the licenses and what they do, specifically the term "copyleft".
Does knowing where someone is from disqualify him or her from having an opinion? This type of sentiment borders on racism.
I feel like it had something to do with DeepDream - in the popular consciousness, tripping on acid / hallucinating became something that computers are surprisingly good at, and maybe that transferred to text models.
> No one is contending that using scooters is bad for the user.

I'll definitely contend they're bad for the user. Now, to your point about being drunk, it could be due to the facet that in my city they seem to be primarily used for bar hopping, but my partner works in a hospital and has seen too many horrific injuries (and deaths) of scooter riders - like way more than bicyclists or even motorcycles (which he refers to as donor-cycles).
That integrated with Powertoys Run is actually a lifesaver. Can't remember the last time I used Windows Search
This actually has been thought about before, in the context of remixes, collages, etc. The essential question is how much of the originality of the original work(s) constitutes the originality of the new/derived work. If it is little enough, then it’s okay. The issue with AI models is that they have no way of assessing originality and tracking the transfer of originality.
The vast majority of my time is not spent on anything brand new and never seen before. I guess it's an interesting philosophical discussion about what creativity actually is, but for practical purposes, this thing is already an accelerator of routine work for me.

Maybe its capabilities hit a wall at GPT-5 or GPT-7, but I'd guess there's a lot of gas left in the tank, and there's probably someone in their apartment right now thinking up what's next after transformers.
Remarkable especially given the hugely viral “Pope” AI images of the last few weeks.
Quite apart from arguments about the effectiveness of authoritarian regimes to prevent this, we would first need an LLM that can be trusted not to make stuff up.
Author is a college freshman, I stopped reading after reading the about me.
The length of that demo was mathematically perfect.
Probably from the early deep dream pictures?
Every community has bad apples. I've worked with hardcore Rust devs and they hate the cargo culting as well.

What ticks me off is that people single out Rust and that's very visible. Go criticize C/C++ legacy baggage and you'll get a very different engagement. Say something about Python and Golang. Very different responses.

At this point and to me, as a mostly indifferent side observer, people negatively overreact if Rust is praised -- and only cite a bunch of loonies that even the Rust devs and core contributors dislike.

Does not seem like a fair and objective assessment to me.

As techies we should be much better than that. Merit before bias and all that.
It's a pity that cooperative broadband is usually ignored, while people and local governments expect venture backed companies to solve their problems. They work for themselves, not for you. Cooperatives tend to have reasonable prices, reasonable speeds, and work by reasonable principles. They might not be the cheapest and fastest, but will be there for you because you're a member/co-owner, not a customer.
"Unreliable luxury" should be Elon's marketing slogan.
if someone misuses code people put a lot of time into, they may eventually get cease & desist and then sued, especially open source code under licenses like GPL.

I don't care for AI ethics, its simply a breach of copyright to take my code and reuse it somewhere (theres a lot of my code that isnt licensed at all on GH). Since OpenAI can't guarantee it wont breach licenses or copyright, it should simply not allow code questions, the same way it doesnt allow sexual or illegal content "just in case".

But wait, no, that one's too much of a money cow.

I'm sure it would happily reproduce 1:1 a piece of leaked source code some company owns, and OpenAI would tell you their hands are tied and theres nothing they can do.

Of course, when it comes to making sure it doesnt say "fuck" or any variation of it, that instead seems a high priority.

And people go defending it, as if theres nothing OpenAI could do. Yes people are also trained on code, but people generally dont have the capacity to remember 1:1 a 50+ line function, and if they do, they can likely remember the license, too. Its a non-argument.

And then, to top it all off, tell me with a straight face that people have not gotten in trouble for writing a similar enough work, e.g. in academia.
Completely and utterly missing the point. That comment needs nothing beyond the first question.
Time will tell, and it's a destined trend for more devs close sourcing their code no matter what curious angle you are trying to justify large firms using AI exploiting money, and I doubt you are working for one of them.
Also in Europe most countries require you to attend some driving school, pass a test that's not a joke and abide to the traffic regulations.

Neither of this applies to the scooter riders and it shows.
> Every time a project uses it, its a pain to deal with.

Sorry, but I consider that a plus.

One of the primary problems with GitHub right now is the "drive by" nature. Everybody is on Github because a bunch of idiotic big corporations made "community contribution" part of their annual review processes so we now have a bunch of people who shouldn't be on GitHub throwing things around on there.

Putting just a touch of friction into the comment/contribute cycle is a good thing. The people who contribute then have to want to contribute.
> now quickly taking on the role of a general reasoning engine

And this right here is why it's important to emphasize the "stochastic parrot" fact. Because people think this is true and are making decisions based on this misunderstanding.
missing /s ?
What basic desktop functionality is degraded? I mean, I understand the ads, and the push towards cloud with OneDrive.

But what functionality has been degraded? As far as I can tell, Windows still has the best multi-monitor support of the 3, and pretty good window management defaults out of the box. Driver support out of the box as well, and rock-solid stable DE.

macOS, on the other hand, has this weird ideas of window management and requires third party software for snapping your windows to the corners, and so on.

I see a lot of hand-waving in this thread which makes me doubt the credibility of many posters.
In declarative systems, you want to explain the final end-state.

Often your requirements on the final end-state involve some predicate logic. I want (A and B) or C. Using an Or makes sense, if you want your declarative logic to work on both windows and linux. Or you want configurable declarative logic, or you want to be easily able to manually change the files.

A very natural way to do predicate logic is "if A is true, then B should be true". That is logically equivalent to "B or not A". But letting people write "if A, then B" is just nicer.

Hence declarative logic is much nicer with "if statements".

Perhaps another way to view this is that many declarative systems "build" their description of the desired end-state imperatively. I wouldn't say that applies here, but I could imagine cases where you want to say 'for all elements here' which might be best solved with a for loop.
The problems are attribution and licensing. Not use.