skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oftentimes, it has to do with the company trying to save money. A "senior position" might be paying $80k/year, but fire the senior guy and hire two juniors or people fresh out of college and pay them $30k to $35k/year and some companies see that as a "savings" rather than the experience that $80k/year senior was bringing to the table.

During COVID-19, my company had a mass layoff and several departments underwent "restructuring", even laying off our sales people, but never replacing them. For months, we sat with very little work, just hoping we still had our jobs. Fortunately, it has picked up, especially as I took my required PTO, in which the only night person beside me got so busy, she had to leave jobs for the morning team, which technically shows the justification of why I have my job and her and I need to stay working together.

There are so many reasons why companies might do this... but it really all comes down to CEOs coming in and working with a finance team, where all they see is, "This department is bringing this amount, while paying this amount, and we want to see more profit... so we have to let X amount of people go."

After they laid many people off, they got rid of our bonuses and no more raises. As a result of this, I take up any work when it comes to freelancing or working a second job. Also in my downtime, I spend time on my side projects in hopes that one will eventually do what I need it to do in regards to bringing in enough income to supplement what I make at my current job.

This is what 10+ years of loyalty to a company gets you now.
> is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material

None of what you are saying has anything to do with copyright.

The tool Photoshop isn't generally intelligent either. And yet, yes it can be used to create art using other people's stuff.

And it could be done legally if the results are transformative.
> You were just being true to your name, by offering your revision history!

lol

> geek_at could probably have done better by disclosing this in private first, though

I'm glad geek_at let me know quickly and also made this a learning experience for others. No harm done.
I doubt these drones wouldn't just fall back to safe mode and navigate back to base.

It would be a lot more fun to build a drone that can drop a net over another drone.
Not sure why you think you're entitled to standardised parts across various manufacturers? When has that ever been the case for driveline components in vehicles more complicated than a standard pushbike?
One whose residents value continued education differently from each other and thus present the costs to the individual to make their own decision. What kind of world makes the poor person working a manual job pay for someone else going to college?
Good point, in regards to concerns about inflation devaluing UBI's can be addressed through progressive taxation, which ensures fair funding without burdening the less well-off. Targeted government spending and investments in essential services can also mitigate potential inflation while promoting economic growth. Crafting effective UBI policies involves striking a balance between economic considerations and social support systems to maximize positive outcomes.

Looks like you got some common questions that maybe this site can explain as well.

https://basicincomeaustralia.com/faq/
It's funny to see this copyright overreach as somehow opposed to monopolies. Should using data to train AI models be made illegal then the only entities capable of affording it would be global monopolies (and maybe pirates? Though the compute necessary may be prohibitive). There would be no way for smaller AI entities to compete.
Even if we keep draconian copyright laws they need to be changed in some ways. Otherwise Disney will dominate by creating their own AIs and we still end up with a small faction controlling what we consume - and we will be paying them for the honor of it on top.
My feeling would be this does violate the law. The problem is new technology must often go through courts to actually establish the law. So it seems that while the NYPD could decide it’s a no-go, their worse case is to do it, get sued and then let a judge make the call.
Got a source for that? It sounds fascinating
>> …Controlled by Apple and Google.

> FFS ! Pure FUD and you know it.

I did not say, or mean, “access to the data”, which is why I used the word “control”. Apple designed a system that runs on their devices and are the ones steering its evolution.
Put the laser on a drone, duh
I'm an ex-google employee laid off as part of the 12000.

To answer your question, basically not at all. Half a year before the layoffs, they explicitly consolidated power towards your direct managers around the assignment of work and especially quarterly and yearly assessment.

Not just toward managers in general -- before that point there was a consolidation of power towards managers in general over the years, but luckily a group of manager's peers would balance out or question any extreme examples, which moderated a lot of what can sometimes go wrong.

But right before the layoffs the system was changed to have an explicit emphasis on your direct manager.
That is why we should halt AI completely and do a more thorough analysis of its societal-level implications before blindingly putting it out there.

Because when new technology is introduced, it makes it almost impossible to stop using it due to the way our current society is setup (as a sensitive machine that is very quick to reward any gains in efficieny and economic output as opposed to sustainability).
Is there any precedent where copyright was focused on the input rather than the final published work?
Because monad knowledge has negative value. Introduce the idea that "a monad is like a burrito" and a software team will accomplish nothing for a year.
Sometimes I feel this way and then I come across a post where dang hasn’t gotten around to blowing away the low effort joke comments. Turns out it sucks
The Third Feline Servile war was a very dangerous time indeed
There are three copyright issues here; datasets, model weights, and model outputs.

Dataset copyright is pretty well defined and things can often be used under fair use. Fair use decisions are done with a four prong test and really decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis.

Model weights cannot currently be copyrighted. They are the output of a mechanical process over the dataset. However, software faced a similar situation where the source code could be copyrighted but the compiled binary was not. US copyright law was updated to address this. We may see something similar for model weights.

Model outputs are less clear, but these are likely copyrightable by the user of the model. It is not possible for a non-human to hold copyright, so the model cannot. It is very unlikely that the company producing the model could assert copyright over the outputs. A good analogy here is someone using photo manipulation software.

Super interesting area. I think we will eventually see an update to the copyright code to make weights copyrightable. Also it will be interesting to see how court challenges (code generation, image generation) affect datasets in the future.
Sort of like SAFe, which . . . oh, wait! Was developed by the exact same people once they decided to get on the Agile gravy train!

And I say that as someone who works in Agile, supports it 100%, and has no time for the "it's a scam" whining.
What you’re describing requires an ability to copyright style on top of expression. That would be an unacceptable constraint on freedom of speech and artistic freedom in my view

The ability of an industry to turn a profit should not constrain the ability of the general public to communicate ideas. Expression is the only thing that should be copyrighted against
They won’t do it if you ship to a different name at the same address.
I agree. I was being somewhat facetious there. I don't really enjoy copyright laws the way they are, but I do believe that AI is the FAR greater evil.
HAH! Wow, I'm glad I didn't say I had 75% confidence instead of 100%.

That's really cool. Thank you for posting that, it's super interesting.

I guess I was playing it on my 486SX 33mhz then.
Even John Q. Public can hire K Street – if he has the cash (2007)
I'd be interested to see the outcome of all this honestly, but I see parallels in how we exclude natural organisms from copyright and instead rely on patents to enforce ownership of unique genetics.
Optimize one’s behavior relative to the surrounding environment to maximize a reward function (as all life has done since times past).
> is that not an obvious copyright infringement?

No, it is absolutely not.

Let's do the same hypothetical that you brought up and using other people's art, but instead are model just takes 1 single pixel from 1 million images.

Taking 1 single pixel from a million images, or the first letter from every book, and putting it into a new work is transformative fair use.

Transformative fair use is legal.

> Just because the output is 50% image A and 50% image B, or 0.1% image A and 0.1% image B and 99.8% image C, doesn't suddenly make it OK.

It quite literally does! Using .1% percent of an image is legal.

The amount of work that you take from someone else is one of the 4 factors of fair use.

Yes, the specific example you gave falls under what the courts literally use right now as one of the factors!
that is not evidence of a historical fact
I had a UFO experience/ride in the space ship as a kid <8yrs old in the middle of nowhere where I lived in the UK.

Very vivid, can describe it in great detail, but having read alot on drug users experiences on erowid experience vault, seen patterns in the different hallucinations based on drug type, and various drugs used in a medical context, I now think my UFO experience/ride in the space ship was some sort of drug induced thing, perhaps a test to get rid of superstition of sorts in individuals and to "install" an extreme logic and scientific rational approach to life.

The sort of thing that might have been some MK Ultra spin off to get voodoo out of peoples lives.

The UFO was not a stereotypical UFO with massively advanced features, but more like a man made object, with controls that you would expect to see in a 1970's BBC Scifi production. And the ride through space was nothing like what space looks like from the ISS webcam, again reinforcing my belief it was some sort of drug induced hypnotic trip of sort.
Works for whom?

You argument is hinged as a defense against anti-immigration.

I’m not anti immigration. I am against simply making it easier for software developers to get visa’s, that doesn’t make America any better (than giving visas to non-developers)

Creating jobs that only go to skilled tech workers, and/or tech workers who live in tech hubs isn’t much of a benefit to America.

Create well paying jobs that any american can do with tradeschool or on the job training—those are jobs we need.

Not workers willing to make an internet enabled juice machine.

And if you have a great idea, have funding and customers, sure we can give you a visa, but in exchange the US tax payer gets 20% stake.
You're joking right?

Not as much as you.

Windows 11 won't (officially) install on any system lacking a TPM v2.0. The only reason that Windows 11 can be installed without hassle on modern hardware is because every motherboard manufacturer started scrambling to outfit their systems with such a TPM by default. Also, for Windows Vista they completely rewrote their driver model for many devices, which means that no printer/scanner/sound card/graphics card from the year you mention has functioning drivers for any current Windows version.

So no, something built in 2002 will most definitely not run current Windows. Even most systems built in 2018 will not run Windows 11.
How come a file format has a .cargo directory in the project tree?
Why does non-alcoholic beer taste different?
It used to be standard for advisors to make money on commission, which led to terrible incentives (read: they are paid to get you into particular investments, which is an incentive to recommend things that make them money even if they are bad for you). This practice is declining, but you still find it at the big banks and brokers. "Fee only" advisors means they only take a fee from you, so they don't have this conflict of interest -- you can find many at Napfa.org .

Even then, though, advisors are biased to recommend things that they can actually do for you, so sometimes they will recommend things that are easier for them ("just use the same portfolio as my other clients") instead of finding what's truly optimal for you.

And that's actually usually okay. The kind of person who never touches their investments and doesn't understand finance is actually better off with an advisor than doing literally nothing -- e.g. sitting in cash, or really dumb investments your aunt recommended -- which is the practically the counterfactual a lot of the time
The product of your human work is the input, not the ai generated image. You are merely commissioning some system to do the work on which you have very little actual future authorship except the commission. For art we don't grant the copyright to someone commissioning work, they have to negotiate with the artist for that.

But your artist is not human, so cannot create copyrightable works, so you can't even bargain for the right. Your copyrightable prompt just created a public domain result.

As for your comparison with photoshop, you have it backwards. The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them.

Just like other works that are a mix of public domain and copyrighted elements, you can only copyright the human authored work. It's like making a comic with AI pictures - the images themselves are public domain (assuming you haven't forgotten to license the use of those works in your computer system that generates the image for you), you assembling the work into a comic is what you own the copyright to.

the characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain, no matter if you prompted all of them.
Drones are cheap, people are expensive. The current labor shortage isn’t going away, and everyone is going to have to make more use of automation to get by. Lots of police departments are flush in cash and yet still can’t hire enough new police officers (and when/if they compete on salaries, which they can’t because of union rules, it would just be a bidding war for a limited number of people who want to do that kind of job).
I don't want to see AI copyright, but that's more an extension of not wanting to see any copyright.

A lot of it comes down to creativity as a process, or as a product.

It feels like many people tend to view creativity-- especially capital-A Art-- as a process-- it should be arduous and require skill and be an exclusive club. I've seen people be very hostile to pre-AI digital technology because it lowers the bar-- with software, you have a canvas that you can keep erasing until you're happy, a straight-edge that's perfect every time, etc.

I tend to think the important part is the end product: was someone able to express their vision to the highest possible level of fidelity? In that regard, every new technology gets us closer-- the person who couldn't draw a circle can take a photo and doctor it in the GIMP until he's happy. The next frontier for this is to say "I can use AI to generate 200 permutations, and then take the ones I like best and further hack on them to get what I want."

This also makes me hostile to copyright, since anyone trying to claim work as their own, establish restrictive conditions, or "stop plagiarism" is denying others tools and resources that could be used to deliver their vision. Maybe the most effective way to realize someone's vision is to start with an existing piece of work and modify to fit. (programmers seem to understand this more innately than, say, photographers)
That's post facto logic. Obviously you and your ancestors have overcome those things, because the millions that didn't are dead.

Statistically someone was going to survive, you're lucky it was your ancestors, but it doesn't mean you will be lucky again.
Art of Developer Experience – Podcast about API design, docs, SDKs and tooling
I never understand how these kinds of software do data importing. Do you have to manually import these things every time I do a trade or I get my paycheck or spend $2 at the corner shop? If so that seems annoying
Hollywood studios have lost the strikes. Now it’s time to negotiate surrender
It's because it reduces the candidate pool too much, and even jobs where you will definitely use monads like some devs at Jane Street they will accept candidates who don't even know functional programming yet.
Are government contracts and consulting considered disreputable for some reason? A reliable and accountable third party firm for custom software development feels like a valid niche worth filling to me, and strikes me as much more moral than the other behemoth tech companies constantly pursuing surveillance capitalism and eroding the digital rights of individuals.
The Jaguar port is not a port of the SNES port. It was built in-house at Id and was developed by Carmack himself. See Doom Wiki: https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

The SNES port runs on a bespoke engine written by Randy Linden. Whereas the Jaguar Doom is the basis for many console ports, SNES Doom is something of an (incredibly impressive!) dead-end on the Doom family tree.
No, I think they mean status Indian. It's a Canadian designation. Their own (the Canadian) government webpage agrees with you that's it's outdated. I'm just commenting because the difference between him saying "status Indian" vs "indigenous Canadians" and "Indian Canadians [meaning indigenous]" is in having said status first

Tbh. I didn't know this either. But it seemed so specific to say "status" so I looked it up. Til for me

"About Indian status
Find out more about entitlement, benefits and registration under the Indian Act and the Indian Register.

Use of the term "Indian"
Many Indigenous people in Canada prefer not to describe themselves as "Indians" and view this term as rooted in colonialism and racism. Under the Indian Act, the precise legal meaning of the term "Indian" refers to First Nations persons who are entitled to registration."
This is _exactly_ how it looks when a society commits suicide.
My goodness,

Why not make it even easier for some anon to harass your workplace (happens more often than not)
There do seem to be some evolutionary branch points in which a single occurrence of a mutation or adaptation seems to have proven overwhelmingly successful.

The one I'm most familiar with is of the integration of mitochondria into eukaryotic cells. My understanding is that all mitochondria seem to trace to a common ancestor, which would suggest that this mutation appeared once, and was so overwhelmingly energetically advantageous that all eukaryotic life descended from that single individual.

(There are non-mitochondrial life forms, including prokaryotic bacteria. But so far as I'm aware every complex multicellular life form, and quite a few unicellular ones, are all prokaryotes.)
You are describing transformative use, which is permitted. Otherwise I could create a picture with every possible RGB pixel and then claim all other artists are infringing on 0.1% of my work.
I'm guessing rich white New Yorkers wont have to worry about drones over their property spying on them. ಠ_ಠ
You cannot possibly be serious. Who uses back buttons, on the web? Everybody.
Google I/O Extended, with Peter Norvig and others [video]
If they can’t decay then time can’t stop.
Yes, thats the piece I was referencing. There are some other relevant sections too:

"a situation which Paul Valéry pointed up in this sentence: “Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into
our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort, so
we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and
disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign.” "

"technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into
situations which would be out of reach for the original itself. Above all, it
enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a
photograph or a phonograph record. The cathedral leaves its locale to be
received in the studio of a lover of art; the choral production, performed in an
auditorium or in the open air, resounds in the drawing room"

The whole essay is great, I'd really recommend reading it and Benjamin's other works.
> Would all tools then need to be updated to support it?

The effort to translate JSON to another structured data format is orders of magnitude easier than converting the unstructured mess we have now into JSON.

So, it does not matter if we choose JSON, XML, TOML, etc. Once we get structured data, then things progress quickly.

The nice thing about JSON at this moment is that it is a very common and easy to use format.
> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them.

In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected.

The courts disagree with you though.

Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the work using Photoshop.

It is the computer printing out the picture using bits and bytes. That's not a human! That a computer program named photoshop!

Then follow the exact line of logic from there.

> characters and images designed by a machine remain public domain,

We know this to be false though, because a character created by Photoshop is done on a computer though.

Therefore, it is clear that yes a machine can be used in the process, unless you are going to claim that Photoshop is not protected because it is run on a computer.
Hover/go-to-definition seems more like a nice-to-have than a requirement. Either way, neovim support can be found here: https://github.com/LhKipp/nvim-nu
Just because potential attacks exist doesn't mean it isn't a solved problem in practice.

There are plenty of well-research PRNG algorithms out there, some of which are used in very high-profile applications like TLS and have been exposed to hostile parties for over a decade. If you are building an HSM you are almost guaranteed to already have a battle-hardened implementation of one lying around.
Yeah, "dense" kind of under-sells it. Given the distance to its host star, I would guess that this must be a gas giant core that had its outer envelope blown away? Otherwise this seems hard to fit into our typical models of planet formation
How does this square with something like Cariou v Prince? http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince
It's defining build flags for the library containing the definition. I'd encourage people to read it, it's very documented by build flag standards: https://github.com/microsoft/igvm/blob/main/.cargo/config.to...
This is like a decay of the gaps argument :)
AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) Firmware Source
Learn about Embedded Single Board Computers, their hardware and software services, how to use them, and tips for choosing the right one, like ARM Cortex series.
Probably 20% of the services power the other 80% under the hood too.
This isn't a math quiz. For practical purposes, we can start with a list of technologies that are clearly harmful. Generative AI like ChatGPT, AI image generators, AI text generators that write something based on a prompt, etc. all halted.