skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Humans (and their creativity) have special status and privileges in law.

Machines don't. It doesn't matter how fancy they are. The law doesn't care.

So yes, a human in a black box is different from a machine in a black box until laws change.
Are you asking if it is okay for humans to plagiarize or otherwise violate copyright? For both the human and the algorithm, the answer is: it depends. Yes?

Are you trying to make money off of it? Is it for personal use? Was it protected or public domain?

It just all depends on the circumstances. Human or not.
If you write your NestJS application with nice boundaries (SOA or DDD) you can split it up as it scales. It's the same approach a lot of .NET guys take, write it modularly and scale out just the bits that need the throughput.
I think the difference was simple vs easy. They made a few of the things very easy.
Isn't e.g. ChatGPT trained on data all over the internet? That means even if you upload your code to GitLab or your own public Gitea instance, it will still be used to train AIs?!

I don't see the point of this because quite frankly - if you want to prevent AIs using your data, you already lost that battle in the moment you uploaded your Code to the publicly accessible internet.
I'm a proponent of not restricting (well, or trying to restrict) machine learning models and not considering them a lossy database but it must be said here if humans can recreate copyrighted works from memory and publish them, they are in trouble too.
It looks really promising. However, there are some growing concerns I believe that link it with mitochondrial dysfunction as well, if I recall correctly. Hopefully that's not the case, but it's a developing story. (It does reduce exercise output as well if someone is an athlete and cares about hat, but since it does mimic exercise in a way on a cellular level, that's to be expected I guess). :'(
Chef's law: spaghetti cannot be removed or added, only distributed.
>The way to do it legally is to have 1 person read the code

wasn't it to have one person run tests of what happened when different things were done, and then write up a document describing the functionality?

In other words I think one person reading the code is still in violation?
How about a country incapable of stopping the consequences of unregulated industry? That fits with global warming.
I see what you're going for, and I respect your point of view, but also respectfully I think the logic is a little circular.

To say "it's not a database, it's a language model, and that means it extracts generalized patterns from viewing examples, just like humans" to me that just means that occasionally humans behave like language models. That doesn't mean though that therefore it thinks like a human, but rather sometimes humans think like a language model (a fundamental algorithm), which is circular. It hardly makes sense to justify that a language model learns like a human, just because people also occasionally copy patterns and search/replace values and variable names.

To really make the comparison honest, we have to be more clear about the hypothetical humans in question. For a human who has truly learned from looking at many examples, we could have a conversation with them and they would demonstrate a deeper sense of understanding behind the meaning of what they copied. This is something a LLM could not do. On the other hand, if a person really had no idea, like someone who copied answers from someone else in a test, we'd just say well you don't really understand this and you're just x degrees away from having copied their answers verbatim. I believe LLMs are emulating this behavior and not the former.

I mean, how many times in your life have you talked to a human being who clearly had no idea what they were doing because they copied something and didn't understand it all? If that's the analogy that's being made then I'd say it's a bad one, because it is actually choosing the one time where humans don't understand what they've done as a false equivalence to language models thinking like a human.

Basically, sometimes humans meaninglessly parrot things too.
Indeed. Case closed. If an AI produces verbatim code owned by somebody else and you cannot prove that the AI hasn't been trained on that code, we shall treat the case in exact the same way as we would treat it when humans are involved.

Except that with AI we can more easily (in principle) provide provable provenance of training set and (again in principle) reproduce the model and prove whether it could create the copyrighted work also without having had access to the work in its training set
Close to zero? It's too hard to create an identical picture from memory, even with the original the fakes are not bit-perfect. Computers, on the other hand, are great at copy&paste
It is something you have, the machine where the file is. It's only something you know if the only way for me to steal it from you is to threaten you to say it. If I can just yank your open laptop from your lap in a cafe, it's something you have.
Your polaroid example would require someone to write code that does that one specific thing. You could also argue that this would violate copyright if it was trained on some photographer's specific unique style, made as an app and marketed as being able to mimic the photographer's style. But in your example you have 1000 random polaroid images of unknown origin, so somehow it becomes abstract enough that it doesn't become an issue.

In your stephen king example I would say it's still learned, because the "code" is a general language model that can learn anything. It's just you decided to only train it on stephen king novels. If you have an image model that trained 100% on public domain images and finetune it to replicate a specific artist's style I would personally think the finetuned model and its creator is maybe violating copyright.

But when it comes to learning I would say when you write a program whose purpose is to learn the next word or pixel, but it's up to the computer to figure out how to do that, the computer is learning when you feed it input data. It's the program's job to figure out the best way to predict, not the programmer. (it's not that black and white given that the programmer will also sometimes guide the program, but you get the idea)

When you write a program that does one or several things, it's not learning.

I think it's something to do with the difference between emergent behavior from simple rules and intentional behavior from complex rules.
I agree, I'm not saying that machines don't produce copies of existing data, I'm saying that's not all they produce.
>> I've run a few companies in my time. I'm no stranger to this

Impressive my guy
>this is a great way to prototype ideas or get a first version of the product out there

As long as it works and makes money it excuses shoddiness. Publishing a draft to fish for revenue is the reason we have so much poor software running out there. After it's in production, you will not be able to make a business case to re-make it right.
> Life people died in all age from all kind of curable issues.

Sure, absolutely. Just not in large enough numbers to drag the numbers down lower than today [after age 5], when we've dramatically increased the number of deaths due to preventable issues. For example, heart disease was much rarer, and cancer incidence was less than 10% of today's numbers. Fewer people died in car accidents, and fewer were shot by AR15s. The causes shifted around. We made medical progress, but we took steps back as well.

As I also mentioned, there've been peaks and troughs. As the paper I cited mentions, health became so bad after the mid-1800s peak, by the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British army had to lower its height requirements to absurd levels because of malnutrition - malnutrition that was a direct consequence of technological advancement!
Not to be confused with Elite Dangerous 2 on the Amiga 1200 or PC.
Not much sadly. I tried it but got:
Error! Engines cannot retrieve results.
brave ( timeout )
qwant ( timeout )
wikidata ( timeout )
wikipedia ( timeout )
yahoo ( timeout )
Please, try again later.
> Every model I have seen does that

Not really. Both overprovisioning and dispatchable storage are hugely expensive, therefore dispatchable alternative generation is employed, which is gas. So in an attempt to move away from carbon-emitting generation these models make carbon-emitting generation integral part of the system.

What models based on renewables actually do is try to find a problem for a solution: throw away grid stability requirements out of the window altogether, introduce huge variabilities and hope that spending power inequality will mask brownouts, i.e. it is hoped that pricing changes and consumer reaction to those changes will be fast enough for load to disconnect voluntarily before parts of grid are forcibly disconnected.
Not to be confused with Pioneer Spacesim, the remake of Elite 2, a free online game

https://pioneerspacesim.net/
Tensegrity Wiki
> It's no longer "something you have" when it can freely be copied, including by a casual passerby or a virus

Yup it's very sad. It's better, for regular people, compared to passwords but it's a complete step backwards compared to actual physical secrets stored behind an HSM (like inside an actual physical FIDO2 device).

It is pure insanity that FIDO2/webauthn was, at last, getting somewhere and that we had something secure gaining traction and that the standard has been embraced and extended by the likes of Microsoft (and Apple and Google) to then greatly lower its security.

While still pretending it's all still FIDO2/webauthn.

And as I understand it it's really bad because companies using passkeys shall be able to force their users to use the less secure form of passkeys by actually refusing passkeys from those offering passkeys where the secret never leaves physical hardware.

For a start it is pretty obvious that the less secure Google/Apple/Microsoft "password stored in a file on your desktop" (and backed in the (i)Cloud: what a concept for security keys!) you mention shall be accepted everywhere. While it's highly likely that at some point, "because convenience", they'll cut off passkeys vendors offering actually secure devices.

And it's likely we'll have at the same time "security experts" explaining it's a godsend security-wise.

> So now when you use Passkeys we'll need to add another 2FA instance to properly secure your account...

As long as it's actually possible to do so.

I fear that at some point it's going to be passkeys are the only auth option and by the way we accept "software passkeys backupable to the cloud" only.

It's just sad.

When you think that the original implementation of FIDO allowed users to detect if their security key had been cloned, thanks to the monotonic counter (I know for a fact because I verified this myself, with cloned security keys, both before and after Google removed that monotonic counter )... But since then Google (and others) removed that check (so it's already impossible to detect if your key has been cloned).

This all makes me think there's more to it than "just" Apple/Microsoft/Google. I think it's highly likely some three-letter agency was involved in the "enhancement" of the standard.
My original comment talked about 'portable CL'.

I am interested though: how would you define an unboxed array of structs in Genera's dialect of Lisp?

Your quote clearly applies to my example. You can avoid the boxing by hand coding the dot product computation over flat arrays; you can't avoid the boxing if you use a 2D vector abstraction (in CL).
> Heisenberg: Microphones installed? (laughing) Oh no, they're not as cute as all that. I don't think they know the real Gestapo methods; they're a bit old fashioned in that respect.

Don't we have the sound only? For all we know there could have been heavy winking, hand gestures or written notes involved.
Here is a good article, I think my favorite part is the paragraph containing reference #146: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/5/921
> Typically, a clean-room design is done by having someone examine the system to be reimplemented and having this person write a specification. This specification is then reviewed by a lawyer to ensure that no copyrighted material is included. The specification is then implemented by a team with no connection to the original examiners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
For hundreds of millions of years, animals have walked our Earth. We are a cosmic blip on our planet. What spectacular hubris we have to think we are so special that we can 'manage' our climate and have the authority to do so.
> Has a human ever memorised verbatim the whole of github?

No, and humans who have read copyrighted code are often prevented from working on clean room implementations of similar projects for this exact reason, so that those humans don't accidentally include something they learned from existing code.

Developers that worked on Windows internals are barred from working on WINE or ReactOS for this exact reason.
Sounds like something a public wifi or a vpn can solve. Then you can wrap your phone in a tinfoil if you wish.

I am being a bit unfair to author. Is this a problem? yes. But then author is also stretching the definition of personal data
It's like the issue is a whole system of abuse, not individuals and individual companies. The incentives are not aligned with being humane, there's no benefit to actually be human in business apart from showing up on a list as a "great place to work at™", that's the only incentive to put up a humane facade to this faceless monster.
That seems to be deviating quite a lot from the concept of the existence of EU causing wars, as you suggested in the message I answered. By a few decades for North Cyprus (or 100+ years, depending from your definition of that conflict) a few centuries in the case of North Ireland.

Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
It's clearly not a copy stop arguing in bad faith.
Any treasure finds in the UK are usually passed onto archaeologists and/or historians in the first instance for study, and almost certainly end up in a museum thereafter if they have historical worth. They are allowed to be sold for profit if those criteria aren't met.
Lot of ifs and maybes there. And a lot of faith that the human race can actually pull together to do that.
Of course: a group contains the inverse of every member.
Or posting screenshots of stuff he does etc etc.
Good for you. FWIW I'm not interested in the internet points either; if some other site were the one that manages to appeal to both askers and experts, I'd be there. SO is the one that manages to appeal to both askers, experts and search engines. Where a ten-year-old question/answer stays visible in the search engines and be read.
It does seem more realistic in motion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1K8Br6jHkcs&pp=ygURZGYgY3liZXJwd...
A physical key to your front door is a physical object and something you own - but you can still make copies of it. Someone else can even make a copy from a photo of the key. Google authenticator was (until recently) the only app I know that made it very hard to copy the OAuth secret to another device, lots of other OAuth apps made it a feature to sync/backup your keys.

I can't think of a lot of security factors (besides perhaps biometrics) where copying is really impossible. Its just not economic.
Linux kernel is more like Kanban than an Agile project, you can't really compare it to a project with an actual client who pays money to receive features in a timeframe. Stuff gets done when it's done and the BFDLs decide when the feature gets into the actual kernel.

Waterfall-style projects had 3 to 6 month timeframes of delivery and we all know how that goes. The result is always either out of date due to changing requirements or not what the customer wanted because there is no way to change course after the project specification was locked.

...or you spend so much time doing an exact specification that the Agile team has already delivered 3 incremental versions.
I cannot speak for the whole continent, but as a single European who lives quite close to Russia, I say that a sane Russia would be the best thing that has happened to this planet in a long time. I truly want that.

For a while Putin's Russia actually looked a bit like that. In early 2000s, USA was the warmongering religious asshole idiot of the world and Russia started to look respectable and honest in contrast. But somehow all that crumbled away. In retrospect, perhaps it was just a facade.
Too bad the article doesn’t say what Kanban is.
From what the CEO said, they were giving out invites from the start and no one was using them and then suddenly the momentum hit and everything was gobbled up and lot more than they anticipated joined.
You can't buy Rimac cars already? Well I know most can't afford a Rimac, but that's a different story...

Specifically what annoys me about that is Clarkson is supposed to be a journalist, the slightest bit of research would have gone a long way.
Interesting. They were interred only a few kilometres from when I am staying right now. I am tempted to see if there is anything to view there.
> Historically, copyright law has not been updated a lot to deal with any kind of technical change.

Ok, not a lot, but it has been updated. Chip mask is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_.... If language model gets as important as chip mask, I don't see why similar update wouldn't be made.
In Lisp, we can embed a lower-level language, and macro over it. Like the defx86lapfunction forms in this file:

https://github.com/Clozure/ccl/blob/master/level-0/X86/x86-a...

It would be useful to have a more abstract, portable form of this (vaguely analogous to WebAssembly): a way to write code for a low level virtual machine that translates to native code.
The fact that Emacsen developers started to create text-manipulation terminology earlier is laudable. But it doesn't make Emacsen terms better. From purely pragmatic perspective we have almost a separate language which brings additional barrier for entry, while adding no particular value. I really feel like we stick to sunk-cost fallacy here.
Klingon software is not released. Klingon software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of design engineers and quality assurance testers in its wake.
The linked post is in response to "Passkeys: A loss of user control?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854216

Unfortunately, it doesn't directly address the issue of the iCloud keychain requirement.
So, like any license except public domain?

Have you personally ever put out something in public domain?
This will always be an issue as long as people can fork the code, so one might say we need a license that prevents a module from being used in ML training, better yet, we need a way for a commented line or something that'd pork the training pipeline if found in the source training, and removing it would violate the license.
A Readable Techcrunch Feed
The machine depicted in the clip is an Apple IIe, which first came out in 1983. But this might not be a 1983 model, because the monitor depicted with the machine is the ColorMonitor IIe, which came out in 1985. Because it's a computer used on a set for a TV show, it's possibly a loan machine, perhaps from Apple themselves, so it was likely supplied as a new computer + new monitor combination. So I'd hazard a guess and say this setup is from 1985 or later.

If we take my previous assumption further, the Platinum IIe was released in 1987, which came with a numerical keypad built in, and looks distinctly different from the IIe. Even though this Youtube clip is 240p, you can distinctly see that there is no "divide" in the keyboard, so this is definitely not a Platinum IIe.

I would say this machine was manufactured between 1985 and 1987.
Sh: Challenges to Overcome When Implementing Generative AI
While generative AI offers significant benefits, including increased efficiency and cost savings, its adoption does not come without challenges. To successfully implement such solutions, you need to address various technical, ethical, and regulatory issues. The article examins various obstacles businesses must navigate to successfully integrate generative AI into their operations.
A paragraph like this one should be the first thing in the Readme.
In that specific context though Clarkson is supposed to be a journalist, the slightest bit of research would have gone a long way.
Even as a dev, I am not going to take care of 3 and 4. I just host my site via a static generator on GitHub.

Who's going to do it for normal users? That's what bluesky is doing and anyone who's interested can theoretically host their own servers.
> Sure, just working less and getting the same money prevents work related burnout. But that is not really big news and simply not feasible in this highly competitive world.

This world is made by people, constructed under rules of people, people are in control of what this "competitive" world is or isn't. It's not a force of nature, it's not the heat death of the Universe.

Changing a social system is extremely hard, probably some of the hardest problems we as humans can face but it doesn't mean I or you should just accept this "competitive world". It's been created by us, it's on us to tear it down.
On Linux there is already an alternative to VAAPI: The Video4Linux Memory-2-memory (V4L2-M2M) API, which provides a standardised API for hardware encode and decode accelerators (and supports using DMA-bufs for copy-free decoding or using decoded frames as textures). I don't know how much support there is for AMD/nvidia/intel but it works well on the Raspberry Pi at least.

It would feel weird for Vulkan to become the standard API for encode/decode given that (as you say) video accelerators aren't necessarily tied to the GPU (although not necessarily weirder than doing it through an extension of the webcam API).
UK gov is pretty good at some things...but cyber anything is not among it.
Close to 0, but not 0

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/autism-ar...

Stephen Wiltshire is cool.
Whether it can technically be called a DNS request or not, this is a privacy leak for anyone who isn't already using Google as a DOH provider. So this should really be written on the extension page...
I'm guessing the rights to the recordings belong to her brother Phil and/or the two people who produced the album.

From the Bandcamp page:

words and music by Connie Converse
recorded by Connie Converse & Gene Deitch
restored and produced by Daniel Dzula & David Herman

From the article:

> It wasn’t until 2004, when an N.Y.U. graduate student heard a 1954 bootleg recording of Ms. Converse on WNYC, that her music started to get any of the attention and respect that had evaded her some 50 years before.

> The student, Dan Dzula, and his friend, David Herman, were spellbound by what they heard. They dug up more archival recordings, and assembled the 2009 album, “How Sad, How Lovely,” a compilation of songs that sound as though they could have been written today. It has been streamed over 16 million times on Spotify.

I found an interview with these two, who set up a record label that published the album.

The Connie Converse Double Album That Never Got Crowd-Funded - https://medium.com/the-awl/the-connie-converse-double-album-...
One might think that when a sophisticated AI becomes publicly available at little cost which has a legitimate claim at being able to do many people's jobs better than the person, those people would want to do everything in their power to make their continued employment viable and necessary... but nope, people would rather stay at home and exist as just a virtual interface equivalent to ChatGPT, except costs more, takes time off, requires health insurance, is slow to get simple tasks done, doesn't like being bossed around, and tends to express a sense of entitlement. My perspective has changed, as long as people insist on remote work, employers will attempt to replace them with AI.