skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> a few copyright holders

By which you mean every copyright holder.

> AGI in the near future

Something that is purely speculative, undefined, and has been promised in the near future for 50+ years.

I don't see copyright holders lying down for someone else's benefit and I don't see governments gutting copyright, contract law, and several other avenues of protection that copyright holders can deploy in the name of something that doesn't exist and may not ever exist.
Chipping flints into sharpened edges may not be a good thing. Sharpened flints can also be stone axes, spear heads, etc.

But beyond that, we should not have such easy to access cutting technology. It’s just too much power for our current greedy, short-term thinking.
Out of curiosity, would running DBT that outputs to a reporting schema on a Postgres read replica work? Or as a startup do you already have too much data for that?
Out of interest, what's the value of having a distinct master and staging branches, rather than just tagging prod releases on staging?
> creation should happen for its own sake

Creation should happen for whatever reason its creator becomes inspired with. The only absolute I can think of is no one should actually categorize worthy and unworthy motifs.
I'd say that "people who understand what’s happening and why" would not be unique to journalists, but also be true for all intelligence analysts feeding into the government (and that this is why dictatorships don't all instantly fall over due to a lack of a free press).

I think the USP of a free press is to shine a light on the issues missed by the formal government — be that large-scale corruption, or hyper-local potholes, or systemic racism or sexism in some (public or private) institution.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Ideally, if not in reality, it's the press.
> In fact, Google already has a feature known as "location estimation," which uses AI to guess a photo's location.

Is this something I can apply to my pictures? If not, that's a bummer because this feature would be very useful!
Pretty much like this: https://s.w-x.co/big-flakes.gif?crop=16:9&width=480

An hour north of Missoula Montana. Saw them maybe three years ago.
That Chrome is using the Safari/WebKit engine though, because Apple forbids to use any other browser engine on iOS.
The EU and many other countries already exempted training from copyright restrictions. The only condition EU added was opt-out, and even then it can be ignored if you're doing research. [1]

[1] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/ai-in-entertainmen...
The Elixir one looks to me like a language reference. Nothing wrong with it, in fact I used to love "language reference" books in the 90s to learn a new language.

It's way better than the typical painful language tutorial that is teaching you about how a variable is like a box containing a value... for every new language you want to learn.

For the sake of other people knowledge, if you appreciate this format to learn a language from a book, search for "language reference" books. They are usually succinct and to the point.
Climate scientists hail 2023 as 'beginning of the end' for fossil fuel era
In the Netherlands it's called "luchten". It's similar to "aérer". Both translate to "To air out" in English.
And incredibuild: https://www.incredibuild.com/
Copyright is the right to copy things. You don't even need to sell it. This is why Wikipedia images are mostly Copyleft images.

Google gets a pass because nobody is suing Google. When people try to sue Google, Google simply stops indexing them and then they start begging Google to infringe their copyright again.
In the US, driving checkpoints are only allowed to check for compliance with driving laws only for the driver: drivers license, car registration and insurance, and sobriety of the driver. It is part of what you give up to drive in public roads. But checkpoints can't search passengers or the car, unless something else that is illegal is in plain view.
After the rain comes sun.
After the sun comes rain again.

(Underwater Love, Smoke City, 1995)
Very reminiscent of http://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks
You say your last purchase was a 4yo car. A good choice for budget conscious buyers. In that case the ICE ban will not be relevant for you until 2034.

Depending on what country you’re in, the ICE bans being proposed does not encompass hybrid or plug-in hybrids. I’d be quite confident that the infrastructure is good enough by 2030 that most people would want a plug-in hybrid anyway. Think about it: at some point in the transition you’ll realise that your car will rapidly become worthless if it doesn’t have a plug. We’ve already started seeing gas stations close down or reduce the number of pumps here in Norway. I don’t think that point will be any later than 2035.

You say you don’t think the cars or infrastructure will be ready by 2030. I find that surprising. When I bought our Kia EV in 2015, non-Teslas had maximum 30kWh and had no benefits over gasoline cars, fast chargers were maximum 50kWh and there were very few of them. Now 60-70kWh has become the norm. Newer EVs have huge benefits over ICE cars (I LOVE being able to pre-heat the car no matter where it is parked in winter). 150kW chargers are standard and 250-300kW chargers are becoming increasingly common. Price for new cars is still an issue but i suspect it’s mainly because all the car companies launched their new EV product lines with luxury models. Their budget variants are starting to come out now.

By 2030 we will probably be getting a completely new generation of models. Look at what Hyundai is working on with their uni wheel system: with the next generation it’s plausible that EVs will start having motors on all four wheels, with independent torque vectoring on each motor, and steering on the rear wheels, while having even better interior space.

Okay, that’ll be mostly relevant to high end vehicles to start with. But the halo effect will probably be significant. By 2030 I think nobody can deny that EVs are inherently superior. You’ll probably have some with 1000km range if you throw enough money at it.

So what about budget models? We’re starting to see LiFePo becoming common for cheap batteries, and sodium-ion is being rolled out on a commercial scale. Hybrid batteries (combining two chemistries to get the benefits of both) are opening new possibilities. There are several dozens of giga-scale battery factories being built right now. All points towards massive pressure to drive down costs by 2030.

I suspect geopolitics will drive a massive shift towards EVs around 2030 as well. Imagine being the first country to be fully electric: you can shut down most of the gasoline supply chain freeing up a lot of resources. You’ll be fully energy independent. Swings in oil prices will not bother you. And you’ll have all the lithium and copper within your borders to keep your economy running forever. All you need is some battery recycling and manufacturing plants and you’re completely independent in terms of transportation energy infrastructure.
Glib analogy, but there's got to be a limit to everything. Beyond resorting to superficial analogies, we should give serious thought into what level of technology is simply too much.

Moreover, I actually agree with you in some ways, even though you meant to be sarcastic. Modern cutting technology, which certainly should include deep-well oil drilling, IS too much.

In fact, all technology has a limit beyond which we should not go. We just have to apply deep thinking to figure out what it is, or at least do our best to try.

You
On Youtube creators who are native to the anglosphere still have a big advantage. TikTok is really the big equalizer. With AI voices being the norm, nobody cares about your accent.
> This behavior may well be interpreted as a violation of the SQL standard.

This effectively changed the tone from an informational article to a hit piece. This is a huge accusation which is plain wrong.
Im happy to pay the artist directly - which is why I use services like bandcamp or buy artworks directly from artists I know personally.

I care little about paying „rightsholders“ and their ilk - so I have zero empathy if they complain about imagined losses.

Don’t jump to conclusions about people who have never even talked to
I don't mind if they make sci-fi real, but can they please fuck off with the dystopian ultra-capitalist cyberpunk sci-fi.
Dating pool size peaks in your forties
yes! I read that article many many years ago, thank you for finding it
Your unwillingness to pay doesn't give you the right to steal, that only gives you the right to not take the deal and walk away.
Ironically, I don't think it would be that hard with LLMs. I tried asking ChatGPT to describe what copyrighted characters each description is alluding to and it had no problem doing so.[0]

[0] https://chat.openai.com/share/e8256470-8e45-4f36-9c84-026be1...
> or change their TOS to disallow OpenAI’s crawlers

Additionally, this TOS can be ignored if you're in a jurisdiction with TDM exceptions.

> Finally, owing to the bar against contractual override, once a user complies with any conditions for gaining lawful access to a work (such as signing as a subscriber and/or making payment), he will be entitled to use the work for TDM purposes even if the terms of use expressly prohibit this. Content owners may wish to relook their business models and, where necessary, price-in the possibility that the licensed works may be used for TDM.

Source: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2021/singapore/coming-u...
Yes, but people misinterpret or reinterpret things all the time and I wanted to state why this should not be seen as a use case for LLMs.
Midjourney's TOS

> You may not use the Service to try to violate the intellectual property rights of others, including copyright, patent, or trademark rights. Doing so may subject you to penalties including legal action or a permanent ban from the Service.

Perplexity's

> Intellectual Property Rights

> Perplexity AI acknowledges and respects the intellectual property rights of all individuals and entities, and expects all users of the Service to do the same. As a user of the Service, you are granted access for your own personal, non-commercial use only.
A couple of days ago I was trying to make Chatgpt give me the equivalent s3:// string for an https://... s3 bucket. The stupid thing would just replace http with s3, no matter how much I told it what I wanted (I needed to reformat several links, and search engines were just giving me s3 -> http scripts).

It finally landed on me that I was using gpt3.5 . Once I moved to gpt4 it got it right the first time.
Would be cheaper to license textbooks and find a way to provide attribution to accommodate Wikipedia etc.
The website breaks for a phone interface, the code lines are neither scrollable nor break lines:/
There is a difference between sharing the tech hype, and risk management. Why would our political and military leadership not be interested in this sort of tech in the modern world? If it doesn’t work out, then it doesn’t work out, but if it does, then they’ll want in on it. Aside from that there is the mass surveillance angle on it. We recently had a nice scandal of sorts here in Denmark where the chief of our secret military or whatever you’d call this was arrested by our secret police because he may or may not have shared secrets about how the US spies on us. It was something that even included charges against our former minister of defence possibly leaking things, something which could have seen him twelve years in prison. Luckily our courts saw it as a political matter and refused to let it run in closed proceedings which led to charges being dropped.

The matter of the leaks were very “Snowdeny” in that it’s possibly that parts of our own government and our secret police share all Danish internet traffic with the NSA, who then in tern share information with our secret police. Which meant that our secret police could do surveillance on us as citizens through a legal loophole, as they aren’t allowed to do they directly, but are allowed to share surveillance information with the NSA. Part of this information comes from the giant American tech companies as well. Despite their promises to not share the data they keep for you. I know it’s sort of crackpot sounding, but between echelon, Snowden and the ridiculous amounts of scandals, I think it’s safe to assume that the American military wants in on LLMs and monitor all the inputs people put into ChatGPT and similar. So for that reason alone they’d want in on things.

Then there is how the war in Ukraine has shown how cheap drones are vital in modern warfare, and right now, they need to be manually controlled. But what if they didn’t? Maybe that’s not obtainable, but maybe it is.

Then there is all the other reasons you and I can’t think of. So even if they don’t believe it’s eventually going to lead to an AGI, or whatever else the hype wants, they’re still going to be interested in technology that’s already used by so many people and organisations around the globe.
People that create art, must eat and sleep under a roof.
If what you have to say fits in 10 bullet points, why would you make me read a full essay? Do you think that the LLM will add a lot of information that is not in those bullet points, or do you think that I am not clever enough to understand your bullet points and therefore I need an LLM to paraphrase them?

Or do you think I enjoy losing my time reading stuff that you could not even be arsed to write yourself?
Agreed. There's a world of emotional difference between being philosophically and abstractly aware that the world has a lot of suffering, and spending each day reading/watching/listening up on the fresh new hell of the hour.
It seems like a somewhat dystopian thing to fix. Imagine a scenario where Photoshop would scan images you uploaded for copyright material and then refuse to work if it determined image contained any copyrighted material or characters (even if it was just a fan drawing you did).

This reminds me of the early days of the internet where people wanted to remove free fanfiction for violations of copyright laws. Trying to apply copyright laws to personal use cases where the creator isn't trying to sell the material is pretty terrible, in my view.

Imagine a scenario 50 years from now - "Robot, can you cut out this picture I drew for a school diorama." "Certainly." "And this one as well." "Error: Your picture seems like it might contain some copyrighted materials, and as such I am unable to interact with it."
I don't understand why some peoole thinks any infringing content can be singled out and removed.

Aren't LLMs giant coefficient matrices like, a punched out croissant dough, made of all training data plyed over? How can you say you can remove one specific ply out of dough and declare that ever potential effect that the offending ply had created is now completely removed?
Yes, another massive player who has the resources and independent market pull to ride and steer a complex and ever-shifting “standard”.

Feels a bit like, “If Delta Lake did not exist, Microsoft would have to invent it.”
I have a life in country A (house, work, wife ..etc). My opportunities are limited to companies having LLC in my country or B2B contracts.

If I were to accept a job in country B I would (in 9/10 scenarios) need to move to that country and adjust to the local culture and language.

I had a friend with korean wife who was in Germany and then Belgium each for couple of years. The whole family was suffering from the constant need of adaptation to local languages and eventually they ended up going to Canada.
Exactly, and the pre-made window doesn't even have the plan A / plan B buttons. For such a simple example it's hard to understand why they didn't just implement it properly.
Addition to my comment:

Of course, the irony is that your readers might take the full text and use an LLM to summarize it back into bullet points.
> And when we do they could just add more numbers

That's an exceedingly optimistic use of "just," I suspect.
VirtualBox is hot garbage. There are other virtualization tools that work perfectly fine on Apple Silicon. Like UTM. Or Parallels.
I'm surprised this is presented as a revelation? I did pretty much this same experiment ages ago as part of a suite of tests comparing the efficacy of different sized models..
> So now you've erased the record of your actual process

You have too! Unless you're recording every keystroke, which I assume you are not.

We are both curating source history. The only difference is that I'm intentional about it.

> that might be revealing later to someone who's trying to figure out what the heck you were thinking

More curation makes this easier, not harder.

> for the sake of trying to create a history that looks more linear or tidy than the reality of what happened

No. For the sake of communicating changes. Linear history and curated source history are just means to an end. They aren't an end to themselves.

> if you're not running tests and re-evaluating all the intermediate steps along your history, introducing the possibility that you've invalidated something that worked at one of those points in history and no longer does after you rewrite it.

A risk for sure. Not a big one in practice in my experience. And you can always configure CI to run on each commit, although the tooling to do this isn't great these days.

It's a downside for sure. But I'm very happy to pay it. Usually the worst thing that happens is you have to skip a commit now and then when doing a bisect. Reverts can also be more painful depending. If the pain becomes too great, then absolutely reevaluate. I wouldn't spend so much effort curating history if it just led to me fighting with it all the time. But it doesn't.

> This strikes me as a crazy fastidiousness

To be honest, based on your comments, it doesn't look like you've given that much thought to this. Firstly, you think the choice is between "actual" history and curated history, when in reality, the choice is between some incidental curation and intentional curation. Secondly, you seem to think I'm just doing this for the fun of it, it for the sake of it. But I'm doing it for the same reason I try to write code in a way that can be understood by others. That's it.

> which is detrimental to the value of being able to find out what actually happened when something goes wrong.

This tells me you've likely never worked in an environment where intentional curation was prevalent. Intentional curation makes this easier, not harder. It's one of its benefits and one of the reasons I do it. Intentional curation makes it much easier to understand the sequence of logical changes over time that has brought the code into its current state.
It’s not a hit piece, it’s just someone who had the wrong conception of the guarantees (not) provided by transactions, and hasn’t fully come around yet.
To be fair, they said they constrained their choices, they didn't say they were conservative in their choices.

I think, it makes sense to constrain yourself if you use a bit more alternative tech.
Tech Billionaires Need to Stop Trying to Make the SciFi They Grew Up on Real

18 points by cratermoon 9 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38712101
I like R a lot but I am not a fan of this sort of operator. It seems idiosyncratic and somewhat ugly also. I think code should be readable beyond all else and the examples with this operator do not look very nice.
I doubt that the media companies would be happy about this; but maybe a compromise is a “copyright infringement filter” that can be enabled or disabled, with a flashing notification that you’re responsible legally if you turn off the filter and have issues.
Exactly. All of these just exposes the absurdity that is copyright laws. It happened before with the Internet and online piracy too, when redistribution became free and easy, yet the corporations and copyright holders refused to budge so they can retain their profits.
This interpretation of copyright only made sense while the transfer and storage of information was tied to physical objects. That time is long and we dont consider it infringement to remember a media or reproduce it at home. Furthermore, we are now entering an era where the production of information is also being untied from physical objects, so it'll only get worse for copyright. I made a post to diacuss this stuff as I find it interesting right now and want to hear more opinions.
Search engines are ruled fair use because they use the copyrighted material in a limited way, they provide a public good and they benefit the copyright holder.

Generative AI is more or less the opposite of that. It ingests the whole work, generates output that substitutes for the used work and profits the user of copyrighted work to the detriment of the copyright holder.

Throw in the fact that it is purley a mechanical transformation of the copyrighted work and generative AI is on shaky ground.
One interesting nuance that might come to play is that while the US nearly always makes products for their own market and expects the rest of the world to adopt it, China is willing to clearly differentiate products for their own market and for export.

As a consequence, an AI meant to topple Western soft power around the world might be held to much looser standards than one used domestically. Who cares that in rare circumstances the AI mentions the Tiananmen Square Massacre to Spaniards if asked about it, as long as it is good enough at spreading Chinese culture.
My little robot vacuum has been running Valetudo from day one. It has been rock solid. I literally never use the UI, as I just press a button and let the little puck do its thing (while talking like Glados from Portal).

I just like that thanks to this, my robot vacuum works like a standalone device that does not communicate with anything, yet does exactly what it should.
And state income comes from...?
Yeah, that's nice and all, but it's not what we're talking about. These passages are about deliberately using the tool to violate copyright. What if, in good faith, I don't deliberately attempt to infringe, but the tool still produces results that do? Because that is happening.

And that's just their interpretation of the tool. There is another interpretation that their tool itself is a violation.
Java doesn't have macros, so everyone uses reflection. That moves errors to run-time. Add to that the typical enterprise patterns like dynamic dependency injection and you end up with very dynamic deployments.
Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.
Reread my comment again.
If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem.

I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that!
There are many tried and proven alternatives.
Right, they're going to kill 6 year old project that they're actively investing in (https://medium.com/flutter/whats-new-in-flutter-3-13-479d9b1...) and use to write their projects (https://flutter.dev/showcase/google-classroom, https://flutter.dev/showcase/google-pay).

I don't like Google and Flutter as much as the next guy, but at least use some arguments instead of parroting "Le GoOgLe bad" meme.
Oh! What language is it in? I'll write you now from a pierdelacabeza dot com domain so I don't forget it later.
According to Steve Yegge, Google used to limit languages to C++, Java, Python, and JavaScript[1].

[1]: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/06/rhino-on-rails.html
Put that c3p0 on a website that gets revenues from views and someone is getting paid.