skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> As the lawsuit makes clear, this isn’t some high and mighty fight for journalism. It’s a negotiating ploy

This I find disingenuous. If I bake a bread and you take it without asking, it's my turn to state what I want: maybe I don't care, maybe I just want you don't do it again, maybe I want you to give it back, maybe I want you to pay, and maybe I want you to pay for the bread plus an extra for my troubles. In a world where almost everything is arbitrated by money it's not extraordinary to demand a monetary compensation for the efforts that it takes to write a newspaper article, and we're not even talking about the quality or even the veracity of said articles; the New York Times makes it quite clear that they don't put their texts out there for grabs, and some data trawler decided those texts were good enough for their nets.

I'm not even saying that whoever trawled the data must pay dollars; I'm not the judge. I just say that techdirt's author uses are very strange point of view here.

> if you think that generative AI can do serious journalism better than a massive organization with a huge number of reporters, then, um, you deserve to go out of business.

This is so besides the point

> It’s a false belief that reading something (whether by human or machine) somehow implicates copyright. This is false.

Well somewhere between "I accidentally saw your headlines while waiting for the bus" and (probably both of) (1) "I reprinted millions of your articles without asking you" or (2) "I downloaded millions of your articles and processed them in order to further my business" one can guess there will be judges who do draw a line beyond which copyright law does come in.
Thanks, please get in touch when you do try it!
And AirBnb, Bookings.com
you can just say it, it's not worse than getting downvoted for having off colored opinions

"aren't you just too stupid to understand?"

maybe I am... maybe I just think differently with another brand of depth

what I wonder now, given another comment about amplitudes, is what happens to combinatorics? (and alphabets, and languages as sequences of strings from finite alphabets) but it's just simpler to dismiss me as foolish idiot.
Yep, I'm very interested in "good enough" optimization techniques using ML, to massively speed up optimization problems that require a lot of computation that doesn't parallelize easily. I'm not an expert in it, but I work adjacent to it, and it seems like a promising direction to me.
Incorporating these technologies instead of posting in-line YouTube links would go a very long way I think?
The article failed to mention tempeh. Yes, not exactly tofu, but belongs in the same category. I would describe it as a cross between "block of classic tofu" and Japanese natto. It is probably much harder to find in the US. Probably, you can find it in Los Angeles where there is a biggish overseas Indo community.
To add to the above: The high-performance commercial solvers typically offer a free (as in beer) licence for academics (students and researchers), so this subgroup has a smaller incentive to develop a competing solver.

Similarly, researches who do spend their time implementing solver algorithms and running tedious computational experiements (the work that the software vendors put in) have historically had difficulties getting academic credit for their work, because the journals favored theoretical work.

That being said, with HiGHS and SCIP, we have two open-source solvers developed in an academic setting, with a lot their graduates joining commercial software vendors. So it's not like these are two completely separate worlds.
Sure. But if the child has that capability, it doesn't automatically make them a walking copyright violation. "Intelligence", even the current version of AI, entails knowing about stuff, including being able to recite. That doesn't mean intelligence's existence violates copyright. If a person used AI to make a copyright violating work, that's a different story, just like if they used their own innate intelligence to do so.
Got my first dose of Sontag from that exact same podcast. It is well worth listening and revisiting in its entirety, all the 192 episodes.
You can subscribe to youtube channels through an RSS reader and get features like this.
Imho your argument is faulty at its base. The objective of chess competition isn't to produce a reasonably good game for the lowest possible cost (blunders and comebacks are actually pretty valuable parts of the spectacle). It also isn't the reason why chess players get paid. Yes, running still was a thing even after the invention of bicycle. This is just invalid logic in my opinion.
Stone Ridge Asset Management, with over $20B under management, operates on a Bitcoin Standard. From their 2023 investor letter:

"Since 2017, bitcoin has been Stone Ridge’s treasury reserve asset because of my extreme aversion to risk. We run net short USD – which is fancy way of saying we net borrow fiat – to pay bills and make investments. We save in bitcoin.

It would be impossible to overstate the corporate advantages of being on the Bitcoin Standard. Since 2017, we’ve doubled our franchises to ten, more than 10x’d our trading profits, and delivered 25% annualized ROE for our shareholders. Our firm compensation, rent, and total expenses are up 89%, 119%, and 69%, respectively, in fi at, and down 36%, 26%, and 43%, respectively, in bitcoin.

The more fiat we make, the more bitcoin I buy. You cannot print bitcoin."
> But as someone who (unfortunately) has just turned 40: who was it that was promising AGI "in the near future" for more than my entire lifetime? Including the second AI winter? Because even the biggest timeline-optimists I can remember (Kurzweil and Yudkowsky), who very few cared to listen to, put things more than 20 years ahead of when they were writing. (And yes, Yudkowsky was definitely wrong about a singularity in 2021, though as you say AGI is undefined I think if someone in 1996 had seen ChatGPT they'd have said "yes, this is AGI" despite its flaws).

You won't be able to read this without a subscription and I can't figure out how to find an archive link to something published in 1958: https://www.nytimes.com/1958/07/08/archives/new-navy-device-.... The important quote, however, is:

> The Navy revealed the embryo of an electronic computer today that it expects will be able to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence. Later perceptrons will be able to recognize people and call out their names and instantly translate speech in one language to speech and writing in another language, it was predicted.

They were talking about the very first perceptron, a hardware implementation funded by the Navy and built by a team led by Frank Rosenblatt, one of the earlier evangelists of neural nets, in 1957. The terminology "AGI" hadn't come into use yet that I'm aware of, as "AI" in itself meant the same thing back then, but in order to be able to call inferior, more limited software capabilities "AI" for marketing purposes, we had to invent "AGI" as the stronger concept. I'm guessing they expected it to happen sooner than 75 years later, though.
I always assumed you had to talk your way into some committee to submit one of these. Apparently it’s wide open. But why do it? Resume padding?
I’m not a scientist but I enjoy reading the literary genre they write (the headlines). Most of the time, the articles themselves are hard or impossible to understand.

ChatGPT can lend a helping hand
You’re right, we should all just give up at the first hurdle, because “they’ve” already gotten away with it, hell, let’s just feed our children to the machine and elect openAI as the rulers of the world, after all, they’ve already succeeded, so we should just give up entirely. Definitely a good attitude to take.
Trial periods. In Luxembourg they're 6 months. You can be sent packing with 1-2 weeks notice, no questions asked.
Same here. Extra points because NewPipe subscriptions are independent of YouTube subscriptions. You don't even need to be logged in.
I agree, but by extension of provoking emotion it CAN change society, but it doesn't have to - wether on purpose or not.

The point I was trying to make was that occupying mindspace, providing inspiration, being culturally influencal etc. are idealistic, non-monitary rewards that should be part of the equation when discussing alleged IP-theft, remixing, attribution and so on.

I'm not saying their shouldn't be any rules. All I'm saying is that there should be a discussion of how we want to handle these things going forward. This train ain't stopping.

Maybe your avg DeviantArt painter needs more IP-protection and -rights than Damien Hurst? Maybe an unknown, independent blogger doing important original research should be attributed more prominently than an article by The Times? Idk.
It depends on the variance of their production line. Indeed if the variance is low enough safety testing is a waste of time and money. Just test a handful of random cars off the line and call it good. Of course that sounds shocking, but it is true.
In practice, the brightness and refresh rate have not been an issue in a software development / home office setting. It has been more than enough.

For gaming it isn't as desirable. HDR also gives the brightness a boost for media so it is plenty fine for that too.

The only thing that I found annoying is lack of inputs. There is 1DP and 1TB, and 2 HDMI (60hz). I wanted at least 2DP and 2TB to be super useful with a dock and a few other inputs.

The size is perfect however.

If LG release an OLED version better brightness, you bet i'll be ordering that too. It has been so ideal, the ROI has been better than any monitor setup i've used.
I'd trust grugq over you any day of the week, lol.

It's funny when you don't understand who you are replying to.
And how are you supposed to make money from something you invent? Let’s say you make a hit video game. Without copyright people can pirate your game, steal the art, make unauthorized derivative works, etc. it’s just theft.
I'm not in the field but in my understanding it's going to make it easier to do parallel competitions and also will allow us to find the inputs that can lead to a particular output in some types of equations. Factoring numbers is only one of the "practical" equations.

Materials science and chemistry (e.g. predicting how drugs may behave in our bodies) will benefit, or other computationally heavy "try out many permutations and see which ones fall though" tasks may become a bit easier. Climate modelling, supply chain logistics, financial modelling, and of course AI.
I certainly hope so. You can’t just steal content and call it “””AI”””
this is exactly what i predicted: the current generative ai is basically rewarded based on how much it convinces people to be a real thing. it very much has the ability to copy verbatim unlike how most human memories work. without fundamental shift in the methodology of machine learning the fault can only be hidden, not solved. a cat and mouse game where one cat has to fight tens of thousands of mouse.
it's also very telling how the discussion quickly turns into "maybe society needs to adapt" when so called technological innovation is involved. copyright problem should be solved for artists, not for datacentres. for now it's a handful of famous IPs, but what's stopping from generative ai to snatch some random indie artist's property and copying it ad infinitum?
Personal note: I don't like Changsha-style stinky tofu as much as the soft stinky tofu in a spicy broth found in Taipei, Taiwan night markets. Honestly, it smells like dirty, sweating socks when you walk past on the street, but if you pinch your nose, holy shit the broth plus stinky tofu is an amazing combo.
Also, there is some stinky tofu in Taiwan that could kill a small horse. You can find YouTube videos of people trying to eat it.
As I understood it, the legal precedent for generative AI is the same one that allows google to scrape websites in order to index them for search for the common good. Google also can display cached versions of websites which is the original content of those sites. No one is going to say that google is copyright infringement just because it is showing content from other websites verbatim. So I think this is a weak argument. AI would be useless if we had to scrub all cultural references and popular IP's (even not so popular ones).

Personally, I think generative AI should be able to provide links to similar source material in the training data.. This would be the barest way to compensate those who have contributed to training the AI. I don't think generative AI is sustainable in the long term if it ends up killing all the websites/artists that created the original material. Plus I think having sources adds a layer of transparency and aids users in understanding when content is hallucinated vs. not. People should be able to opt out of having their content used for training and be able to confirm that it has been removed for future iterations. Let's be honest that AI companies are just trying to avoid lawsuits by keeping it secret. These are areas where I think regulation can help rather than worrying about doomsday scenarios.
A bit less than I expected
You don't need to know category theory to use a statically typed functional language. It just happens that people interested in research languages also happens to be mathematically inclined. You also don't need to be a type astronaut to use Haskell, you can write perfectly simple and pragmatic code in it.

I mean people cope with the horrible complexity of TypeScript just fine and that system doesn't even give you the benefit of being sound.
Or (and I think this is the problem) it requires us thinking about how to enable it for a generation so far in the future we don’t directly identify with them. We like to not care about anything unless we get to benefit from it.

Funny how we think about needing to live longer or travel faster than light.
Lock Strategy (2017)
In that case, the person legally liable for publishing the material is sued for infringement of the work. You don't send someone to jail because they're simply capable of infringing; they have to actually do it, and you have to actually show the specific work whose copyright was infringed upon.

You can also get into the weeds of what's copyright-able (ask Donald Faison about his Poison dance). If you ask for C-3PO and you get C-3PO as he appears in Star Wars promotional material, that seems cut and dry. What if you ask for a "golden robot"? What if you get a robot that looks like C-3PO but with a triangular torso symbol instead of his circular one? What's parody, what's fair use?
So you want someone like Trump to control the media?
Based on the rate of progress; I think this makes little difference to AI progress in the medium-long term.

At the moment, we don't have hardware that can do what humans do (process video feed from eyeballs and build up a world model). I imagine that we'll cross that barrier cheaply in the coming decades, at which point copyright becomes moot. AIs will be able to develop their own styles and world understanding from scratch, then generate original work.
How is there revenue growing then?
There doesn't exist stock options or vesting share programs at companies listed on European stock exchanges. I gave up even asking at some point.
A lot of things become simpler, but hard problems remain. In the cell, a structure of a protein is the result of its sequence and all the other environmental conditions (cofactors, ligands, binding partners, lipids,…), and furthermore, the structure is a dynamical construct, so it can change over time. So the main advance for society is when we can accurately predict how to jam or unblock a machine in a cell without influencing all the other machines in a cell. The essential pieces of this puzzle are the possible shapes of the pieces that make up the machines and AF2 gives you those. But the puzzle is huge. And very important.
Agreed. Fortunately, AI does not have “own works”
> This was specific to the tendencies in other replies to defer to your (or your team's) brilliance/experience as the answer to why your setup is not suspicious, but excellent.

I touched on this in my reply to the other user, but at this point, I believe you may just not know what tacit knowledge is. You continue to think that I am pointing to our own brilliance. I'm not. I'm calling a spade a spade. I recognize what it takes to gain particular types of knowledge (tacit, or subtle knowledge), and I recognize that it's this reality that prevents most conversations about techniques from being fruitful.

Each participant will put their own experience behind the meaning of their words (and worse, their conversation partner's words) and it will prevent them from recognizing what one another are saying. The only way to have a fruitful discussion is for both sides to be capable of recognizing when that is happening. Since, in my experience, most people aren't -- they'd rather die on their hill than recognize that the person they are talking to is simply on the same hill but sees it differently, or they are on a different hill that really is better, but it cannot be seen as such yet, because it is over the horizon of their knowledge.

I don't actually know if you are interested in understanding this more or if you joined the conversation just to try to put me in my place, but if you are, here are some articles that may help:

https://madabout.software/articles/subtle-knowledge-crude-kn...

https://madabout.software/articles/design-is-subtle-knowledg...

Once you can recognize that there is subtle knowledge you might actually see my pointing to it as attempting to keep the conversation from devolving into exactly the type of thing that it tends to devolve into. Or not.
Have you tried the paid version of ChatGPT? GPT 4 is way more capable than the free 3.5 version you get without paying.

I use it to work through architecture problems that are over my head or find answers to things that aren’t obvious in documentation. These are things I used to have to ask staff engineers for advice with. I’ve even had it write large sections of code for me. At this point most of the code it puts out works.

You can also do things like ask ChatGPT to use multiple specific technology stacks to implement your solution, which is really useful for when you’re trying to come up with a solution that fits within existing infrastructure.

It’s like a mega-brain that’s an expert in everything and understands your specific prompt without giving you the junk you don’t want that has similar words.
Remembering robotics companies we lost in 2023
"What an incredibly weird way of looking at one's life."

Perhaps so, but there are millions who actually think that way—but that's not to say there aren't others who think like you.

Moreover, such thinking about the obligations a citizens has to society and vice versa has been at the center of social contract theory (and practice) for hundreds of years. Thomas Hobbes wrote about the social contract in the mid 17th Century in his Leviathan, Rousseau in 1762 in The Social Contract —which was influential in the French Revolution, and that's just for starters.

Explain how I owe anything to anyone."

There's a whole branch of philosophy and political science based around that notion. Here, I couldn't even get to first base to explain why as there is so much stuff to cover.
They do make all the above points in the article - including that it’s hard to verify this information.

Comparing it to Stalin is pretty apt - communist party with a figure head trying to hold onto power. Seems like more than just one person vanished and it’s all under totally opaque circumstances.
The curve is just right, the width is just right at ~60cm away. The ratio is the real winner. I can split it into thirds and each third has enough height (2160px) and width (1706px) to be useful. Each third is taller than it is wide, which is ideal for coding, web, documents.

It's more like having 3 portrait monitors for productivity work. For media editing, splitting the monitor into 2 is like a classic dual monitor setup with enough width for widescreen video.

Then, if you really need it, it works great as a single wide monitor without making the workspace too "letterbox" like other ultrawides.

Honestly, for me, it is the absolute ideal.
Grow and Keep Big Muscles
I’m always curious as to whether taking the top 1% (say) of articles in Wikipedia (ordered by view frequency over a year say) and possibly adding the articles that link to those to some depth (say 3 deep) would feel very different to the full version to most users.
I think if you're installing npm packages and writing code you're a programmer whether you want to be or not.
Personally I've never liked pipes outside of scripting one-offs because I've found them difficult to read. This is because in languages like R argument order can have meaning.

Even if the piped argument goes in a certain location by default, it still creates an exception to all the other arguments' syntax, which adds another layer of complexity.

I guess at heart lisp syntax has always made the most intuitive sense to me personally. algol/c does as well, but the more you mix them the more I tend to dislike it.

I guess pipes always feel like you're "proceduralizing" functional constructs, which makes things more murky (although maybe that reflects some deep equivalence between the two?)

This is just my personal preference, and in an R context. I could be convinced differently. Part of it too is I feel like R is fragmenting by lots of defacto standards, and not in desirable ways. I increasingly find myself wanting to use other languages, even more so than in the past.
To be fair, in some quantum computers, it does work. For example if you count a beam of photons following the same path with (almost) all possible polarization combinations as a qubit, that is indeed closer to "everything between", however it's got limited utility indeed when compared to the broader view.
Grace Groner's Story
The problem is not the suffering, the problem is hopelessness in the face of suffering. If people are comforted when they are suffering, or if we can end suffering, where is the problem with the suffering and horror of the world?

But…

We see the suffering in our cities, poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, but nothing is done. We see endless wars, propagated by the United States around the world, but nothing is done. We see ever increasing homelessness, but nothing is done.

I think we’ve slowly been conditioned that there is someone else that’s supposed to do something, either a politician, or an organization, or or some administrator somewhere, so we just sit back and watch and watch and watch.

If you want to better deal with the suffering over the world, you need to act.

But I’m afraid we’ve let the sociopaths tell us what the correct way to behave is. Look out for yourself! Survival of the fittest!
Do you know anything about NUMU vegan cheese? https://numucheese.com/

Lucali's in Brooklyn, New York is using it for their vegan pizza. Are they doing some crazy food science / chemistry?
It's an line to draw in terms of spending given how absolutely nothing this is in terms of spending. This website probably costs about half that of a single one of the millions of shells made for the US military in a year.
> Haha yeah, the whole "Galileo was mean" is just insight porn nonsense. Evidence-free claim.

The Our Fake History podcast had a two-part series on this:

* https://www.podcastone.com/episode/Episode-163--What-Was-The...

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-163-what-was-t...

* https://www.podcastone.com/episode/Episode-164--What-Was-The...

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-164-what-was-t...