skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is far superior and still pretty small.

Still, the 3x3 ends up working due to context a lot. I wonder if there is a 3x4 or 4x3.
Let’s not even start on Australian sushi places.
Sort of like model collapse but with humans consuming the AI generated text
> If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does!

in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to.

> In all seriousness, midjourney is like any other tool. You can break the law with it, big surprise. It should still be on the person that broke the law, not the makers of the tool.

that would be midjourney, since they're both the creators and operators of their model.

> If you go down the “can’t use my art as training data” how far do you push it? I watched Batman, does that mean if I draw caped super heroes I am stealing training data? Wouldn’t that apply to all comics after Superman? Isn’t he guilty of derivative work himself?

you just called AI "a tool", that's why it's different.

> Also, nobody is being harmed by this. AI is always derivative. Nobody is interested in copies or impressions of popular art, otherwise the guy selling animes on velvet at the local art fair would be making more money. This just sounds like a Luddite shaking his fist at this perceived enemy.

that's an argument against IP law in general, not an argument against holding companies which create and operate deep-learning models to the same standards as everybody else.
If Bic made a pen that came preloaded with unlicenced images of Batman and guided you to reproduce them, then yes.
I’m not sure how I discovered it, but Liero became a massive part of 10th grade Comm Tech and Elec Eng classes in 2001 when I shared it with everyone.
> Nobody is interested in copies or impressions of popular art, otherwise the guy selling animes on velvet at the local art fair would be making more money.

The vast majority of artists make almost no money off their art. Original or otherwise.

Some superstar artists make some money. But that art doesn't have to be original [0], see eg Duchamp's urinal, or the popart people copying comics. Or see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_Square,_Milan_(paint...

Gerhard Richter's painting 'Cathedral Square, Milan' is a 'bad' copy of a photograph:

> The source after which Richter executed Domplatz, Mailand was a newspaper photograph that was in focus, from which Richter clipped a section and modified it.

> It was sold by Sotheby's in New York on 14 May 2013 for 37.1 Million dollars, breaking Richter's own record price for an artwork by a living artist, his 1994 32.4 million dollar painting Abstraktes Bild (809-1).

[0] Of course, motivated reasoning can always find some aspect that makes the superstar artists and their art original. But the same amount of mental effort can also make 'the guy selling animes on velvet at the local art fair' original.
O’Reilly is famous for its "in a nutshell" books, some of them quite thick.

Some nuts are bigger than others.
Which is genuinely the(US) legal system working as intended
>Any person can possess the entire works of Disney (without paying for them)

Man thinks piracy is legal
Renault Zoe at $34k?
Midjourney is returning copies of copyrighted works while its Terms of Service state that “You own all Assets You create with the Services”.
Isn't this the same with Safari?
It's perfectly legal to paint a copy of another image.
Still relevant today - as supplements are still unregulated, and some can be rather expensive, and are full of various sugars to boot.
There are a couple of shortcomings that I think I see:

1. If the clock moves backwards (and an "older" record gets created), it doesn't help.

2. If a duplicate timestamp is created with an id that sorts earlier than one of the other dups (and a user has already synced to the first dup).

In both of those cases, the user won't receive the new record. (Yes, neither is probable, but neither is impossible.)
I’ll point out and it will probably get downvoted again because it is an inconvenient truth, but making vehicles safer for the occupants at the cost of slightly to somewhat more dangerous for non-occupants can still result in a net improvement of overall safety because pedestrians and vehicle accidents happen far less frequently than vehicle to vehicle accidents.
>> I hope you talk in a more informed way about time you know

> Totally unwarranted.

Well, they do like their comedy "subversive", so what else could you expect?
Content negotiation is it just for taste or do you have some other reasons?

I find one good use case for them when a browser can make good use case with a SSE whilst another client just needs a regular _json_ response
Have you ever worked with just raw js?

Anything more than a todo list becomes unwieldy almost instantly.

Taking a small dependency to avoid that is well worth it.

Taking a whole “virtual dom” may be overkill though (looking at you, react)
Did you go to great lengths to suppress emoji, are you running on Windows 7, or is it a bug?
AstroForge, a private company, wants to mine a space rock
Almost no pixels are the same here.

(But neither do the pixels stay the same when you re-compress in JPG. So I'm not sure if Pixel sameness is a good metric?)
You're directionally correct - it's important not to admit to something that the officer doesn't already know - but your example is not a good one, since the cop is going to know you're speeding in this case. You certainly shouldn't admit to having a bunch of drugs, though.
Eh, more: That’s infringement. Question mark?

The images aren’t exact copies, though they’re obviously really close. Considering those are all famous stills from the movies I kind of doubt they actually just took random scenes from the movies themselves - instead it was trained on just images from the internet.

Point A means it might be transformative enough. Point B means it possibly wasn’t deliberately trained on copyrighted material, though obviously they know stuff would be in there. Further, no court has decided whether or not that’d be illegal anyways. My money is on that it won’t be, because there’s really no legal argument that it should be.

If a painter trains himself on copyrighted stuff he’s certainly allowed to sell his own paintings, even if they’re incredibly close to his training material.
The opposite is also concerning. IP law has always been convoluted, messy, contradictory, and morally ambiguous. The complaints of IP violation by LLMs are simply taking these inherent flaws and making them immediately obvious, forcing decisions that ultimately will set precedents on the legality of human thought that I don’t think anyone will be comfortable with. People understandably see OpenAI and Microsoft as potentially dangerous to be given so much leeway, but fail to consider on the flip side companies like Disney who have already more or less dictated the majority of copyright law for decades now. They must be chomping at the bit at the legal precedents potentially coming down the pipeline that call into question the ability to interact with any kind of media or information at any level without potentially being on the hook monetarily.

I think all this is doing is making us realize that we have built a massive economic system on a fundamentally flawed idea of ownership over ideas, and the only two solutions will be to tear up the rule book, which will be extremely painful, or double down, which will be fatal.
That is for a judge to decide probably
No it's not. Especially not to sell it after (or sell a service that paints other images).
This has become my go-to stack for playing around with for the last few months. Go/sqlite(bun)/templ/htmx with a sprinkle of proto-actors. Feels pretty close to phoenix framework with a few helper functions honestly but with the benefit of incredibly fast compilation of Go.

Single binary for distribution with assets/migrations embedded. Still need to build something substantial so I am sure there are edge cases/rough edges but so far it feels like a breath of fresh air compared to nodejs ecosystem.
Yes, because it is extremely sick, and their DNA is severely damaged.
it would be a very bad thing to pass that on to future generations
FWIW emacs org mode, arguably one of the best note taking applications, supports gpg encrypted notes out of the box.
That doesn't look like a screenshot from the movie. It looks like a hypothetical screenshot at different angles.
this is actually 4×4 if you're counting pixels needed on the output device instead of rom space needed; another, more comprehensive font of the same size is https://simplifier.neocities.org/4x4

the same problem happens with the public-domain 'tom thumb' font pushfoo linked in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38800409. it is actually 4×6 (24 output pixels) but claims to be 3×5

it can be accessed despite tls problems at http://web.archive.org/web/20230828193815/https://robey.lag.... but says 'Please do not post this article to Hacker News.'

my own 4×6 font is demonstrated at http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dofonts-1k.html, where it fits into a 1024-byte web page along with all the logic needed to render ascii text with it; but the proportional font i used in http://canonical.org/~kragen/bible-columns (rendered with http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/netbook-misc-devel/propfontr...) is at http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/netbook-misc-devel/6-pixel-1... and is slightly smaller; it averages 21.5 pixels per character. this is more than anders de flon's so-called 3×3, which is 16 pixels per character, but it supports the full character set, if you think ascii is the full character set anyway. so does simplifier's 4×4 font

i think you could do better by using grayscale for antialiasing, and as rafabulsing pointed out, matt sarnoff's millitext http://www.msarnoff.org/millitext/ uses subpixel antialiasing to get very readable text at 1⅔×5 pixels
>content whose substance was created by someone else

And how did the training data contribute to the content in any meaningful way? Inspiration isn't substance.

You think all fantasy writers gotta pay Tolkien estate bc so much of fantasy draws from his tropes? Lmao no.
Amazon is kind of a third thing though. They're a warehouse in addition to a marketplace like eBay. If you buy a thing from an auction site and it's defective, the site might be able to get you a refund (or not, if you didn't pay through them), but they can't get you a replacement product unless the seller has one. The site has none to send you.

Amazon will send you another one, possibly from a different seller. That's... weird. It's like they inverted the model where the wholesaler sells to the retailer who sells to the customer. Instead the retailer sells to the customer through the wholesaler, combining different kinds of products into a warehouse instead of splitting up a warehouse with large quantities of the same product into smaller retailers.

But you still want to put things like this on the "retailer" because they're the one who knows anything about the product. It's the same reason you don't put it on eBay or UPS or a self-storage place. And the same reason you don't need to -- you want to shut down or punish the retailer selling the fraudulent product, not all the other retailers or the surrounding infrastructure providers.
The worst is a few tools where when you type:

the_command -foo

...and the tool responds with:

-foo: No such option. You probably meant --foo

Well shit! Thank you for that burst of empathy. If you, developer, are that confident that's what I meant why couldn't you just make both inputs do the same thing? You went out of your way to make the code handle -foo, but only to have the program fire off that snide remark instead of doing what you know the user meant to do. Maddening.
Yes, not sure whether loophole is the right word. But it's a complication and exception.

> Given that copyright only applies to original works of a sufficient level of authorship, I think there's a valid perspective that typefaces are excluded.

Typefaces are typically a lot more sophisticated than when I'm taking a selfie or jot down some nonsense words and declare it a poem. Yet, the latter two are protected by copyright law.
Pick two:

1. Big seamless world

2. High detail

3. Fast response

You can get any two of those easily. All three, and you're into a big data wrangling problem.
Since I'm working on a high performance client for Second Life/Open Simulator, I have to face all three, and am interested in systems that address all of those.

2) and 3) are the usual case for games - there's a big content download, and then you go. Such systems inevitably have a "Loading..." screen, or screens.
Decentraland is 1) and 3); it's a big world, but not much detail. (Each parcel in Decentraland has only 20,000 triangles.) Second Life is 1) and 2) - big, detailed world, big performance problems.

There are some voxel based systems which manage all three, sort of. They have their own problems.

Improbable's system seems to work, but it cost US$400 million to develop and takes huge server resources to run, so the only real customers have been for special events and military training. The five indy games that tried to use it all went broke. (Worlds Adrift was pretty good, too.)

Croquet seems to be a 2) and 3) system.
>However, should I be looking elsewhere?

Why should you be looking else where if it is working well for you? Unless you feel so wrong about CEO's pay I dont see how it is relevant until the product quality declined.
That seems like a tenuous defense at best. If your prompt references copyrighted material and Midjourney generates a copyrighted image as a result, it's clear the training data must have contained that work, and whatever filters they have didn't stop them from serving it to you. I can't imagine a court siding with Midjourney in that case.
I understand that there's differences in possible outcomes depending on who you are and how you look (and for context I am a clean cut white guy who generally drives in safe areas). Still, I don't really accept as valid that being cooperative and acknowledging that you committed a traffic infraction is more likely to get you killed than being politely uncooperative.
I keep doing a mental trick where I ask, "what if this were a feature of Google/YouTube?"

I think you're allowed 30s clips (or something) while staying within fair use (see: film YouTubers are able to use some scenes and clips)

Thus, you could imagine a Google that would show you the clip of the movie or link to a 30s scene from the movie and then prompted you to rent/buy the movie to see more.

I think Google would get away with that. I'm not positive or a lawyer.

Is this different because it's still images only? Again, Google shows copyrighted images in its image search (usually thumbnails, and then maybe serves the full image from the source? Or sometimes sends you to the source?)

It's not quite clear to me that simply showing the image is copyright infringement - non generative ai companies do that. So where is the line?

My understanding is that it really should be incumbent on the user (like it would be if your search found copyrighted material) but I don't have a legal basis for that! It just seems like nobody is suing Google for image search.
Realistically we borrowed me the money from you.
What I mean is China are installing vastly more solar than any other country. i.e the person I'm replying to is falling behind, which they didn't want to.
Yes that works.
The Central Valley is not naturally fertile
Original post from April '23 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35624069
Duplication without attribution? Wasn't the attribution in the prompt?
as i understand it, that carve-out is included in us copyright law to ensure that you can legally xerox a book with permission from its author (or whoever they transferred the copyright to), without also getting permission from the font designer. in this case it makes the system simpler to navigate rather than more complex
I don't understand anything from this comment. Is there something wrong with me?
Bad analogies are bad
Almost any kind of spending that anyone, including the government, does is coupled with some arguments about the benefits it brings.

For most claimed benefits, it doesn't require a lot of mental gymnastics to find some arguments why they would reduce some spending in the long run.

If you give me an example as a challenge, I can (most probably) spin you the argument of how it reduces spending.
> There was nothing to suggest [that SQL isn't meant to be used without joins]. Did you not bother to read anything before replying?

This you? "If you were to use SQL as designed, with an idealized implementation, you would first query the users and then run a query for each user to retrieve the the corresponding posts"

> Yes, we went over [the very good reasons for joining "users" and "posts"] in detail

You literally wrote, "Logically, users and posts are distinct relations as it pertains to that example. They have no business being joined here."

> That's right, there is a good reason to join them: To overcome the overhead problem, better known as the n+1 problem

That's not right. That is not the reason to use joins.

> That would still be a hack if using an idealized system, or even a practical system that focuses on minimizing said overhead, like SQLite.

Joining tables in general and joining these tables in particular is not a hack.

> In fact, the SQLite docs even tell you should not resort to such hacks while using SQLite as it is not necessary.

Evidence or it didn't happen.

> there's nothing inherently wrong with [a nested data type like XML or JSON]

You also wrote, "Obviously you can use things beyond what they are designed for, but in this case it only works in the small scale. Give us a complicated example and watch the nightmare unfold. Again, SQL is designed for working with the relational model. The example GraphQL schema is not relational. It describes a graph model. There is, as they say, an impedance mismatch. The closest approximation to a graph in the relational model is multiple relations, and multiple relations in SQL requires multiple queries. In SQL, one query always returns just one relation."

Look, I read your comments many times despite your multiple incorrect assertions that I did not. If I haven't understood you perfectly, well in my defense it's because I'm dealing with gibberish like this. It sure seems like you're insinuating there's some kind of problem using SQL to generate the response for GraphQL queries and your reasoning if we can call it that seems to rest in part on the fact that a SQL query returns just one relation. Yes, that's true, but no, that is not a problem for generating the responses for GraphQL.

> I also said what I meant [about the purpose of GraphQL]

You said, "GraphQL doesn't need to be, nor is it meant to be, powerful. Its only purpose in life is to roll up multiple actions into a single response made from a single request"

No, rolling up multiple actions into a single response isn't the only reason GraphQL was created.

> You haven't even read the discussion.

Wrong. Do you always try to take the easiest way out when your reasoning is subjected to scrutiny?

> What harm has been caused [by my comments]?

Oh, I don't know. How about by promulgating the idea that joins are somehow a "hack" for starters?
You can think that but dont tell your dad.
The existence of the forgery isn't the problem!! Selling the forged painting _as if it's the real one_ is the problem (am I missing something?)

In _Tim's Vermeer_ he perfectly (too perfectly) forges a Vermeer. That isn't illegal!! He has it hanging in his home, and whoever is so lucky to inherit it will get to keep it for themselves too.

But if he did it again and then tried to sell it as an original Vermeer - that would be illegal!
More than one thing can be true at the same time. Deals are usually made because interests are aligned. There is a direct benefit to an overwhelmingly dominant player to be able to point to any competitor. There is also a direct benefit to having people use your product. There is even a tertiary benefit of the money theoretically going to development for Firefox that could feed back into their own product.

If you look at the situation in the reverse, what sense does it make? Why would you pay a direct competitor to exist when the amount of money you put in to them is an incredibly large majority of their revenue? Firefox continues to become more irrelevant, and the amount of their revenue they get from Google doesn't really reflect that trend.

I'm not saying the only reason Firefox exists is for Google to point at it. That doesn't mean it isn't a major one. It also is pretty clear to Mozilla because they sure keep trying (and failing) to find other revenue sources
they are literally the exact same size, even many of the letters are the same
> you can run old 2.x code under 2.7 just fine

No you can't lol. There were major breaking changes from 2.4 -> 2.5, and smaller but still breaking ones for 2.5 -> 2.6.
I think it depends on which bits of the Python ecosystem you're interacting with. The numerical/scientific parts have been quite stable for at least the past 10 years (new features have been added, but only small amounts of removal), compared with the more "AI" focused parts where I wouldn't trust the code to be working in 6 months. Similarly, some web frameworks are more stable than others. I think also over the last 5 or so years, there's been a change in maintainers of some larger projects, and the new maintainers have introduced more breaking changes than their predecessors.

None of this is implied by the language, I think it's much more driven by culture (though I think the final dropping of support for Python 2 did give some maintainers an excuse to do more breaking changes than was maybe required).
Once, I somehow got roped into writing a CGI application in C that I was supposed to write and test on a Linux system but that was going to run on a SunOS 4 system that I had no access to. That was...fun.
I blame Adobe, Microsoft and Apple for the common misuse of font instead of typeface.
Copyright law does not apply to imaginary reproductions, such as your imagination. Your question becomes more interesting if get someone to draw that scene from Blade Runner. At that point, it comes down to if a judge considers the derivative work transformative enough (for hand drawn sketch, it would be, except maybe if drawn by a savant). And in the Batman case, you might violate trademark law depending on what you did with image after you drew it, which is a whole other set of rules.

When was the last time you heard the original Happy Birthday song sung on TV? It is now generally avoided, because producers don't want to pay royalties to the copyright holders.
Just needs a periscope like Seymour Cray put in his tunnel when a tree fell down into it... or just don't tunnel under a tree.
This looks interesting, but is there any information about who is making this? If this is a Wikipedia-like, how can someone contribute or edit things?
Vision therapy covers a broad range of conditions.

> quackery

COVD, the professional association has existed for 40 years, https://www.covd.org/page/About_Us

The College of Optometrists in Vision Development (COVD) is a non-profit, international membership association of eye care professionals including optometrists, optometry students, and vision therapists. Established in 1970, COVD provides board certification for optometrists and vision therapists who are prepared to offer state-of-the-art services in Behavioral and developmental vision care, Vision therapy, Neuro-optometric rehabilitation.

A local search found 40 COVD-certified optometrists.