There will probably be a small logo, a mark, or, commonly, a depiction of a fly.

Pee on that.

There will probably be a small logo, a mark, or, commonly, a depiction of a fly.

Pee on that.

It’s really not a euphemism. There will always be a language that’s the most common for international trade, diplomacy, travel, and general discourse.

It was not always English, even when Britain was at the peak of its empire.

It’s easy to claim that it’s role as the lingua franca is bolstered by the international position of the US and Britain over the past 150 ish years, but that doesn’t make it a euphemism.

I think it just stands out because you suddenly understand a word in a different context. When English does it it doesn’t stand out because it’s so riddled with words from different origins that basically any random mouth sound passes as a plausible English word.

I went to a cafe and perused the menu, but I didn’t see anything I liked, not even coffee, so I waltzed out and went to the gourmet delicatessen across the street where I got a Reuben with extra sauerkraut. Hard to say no to corned beef.
Afterwards I picked up the kid from kindergarten, and we picked a restaurant to go to. I wanted sushi, and they wanted tacos, so we compromised and got hamburgers.
We went home, took a shower with the new shampoo, got into our pajamas and read our favorite genre of story: macho poncho wearing jungle robots singing opera karaoke in a salsa tsunami.

We didn’t adopt the words to be cool, it just fit better. It’s hardly surprising that other languages would at least occasionally find one of ours useful in some mysterious way that words blend across languages.

It’s that, plus other factors. The regulations are more lenient, it’s easier to get a more efficient engine in with more mass to work with, it’s easier to pass safety ranking checks, and it’s easier to put comfort features in that consumers want.
Putting a large crumple zone on a compact isn’t as easy as putting one on a giant truck.
(Note this isn’t saying big cars are more or proportionally more efficient , but that the efficiency advances they’ve made over the years are easier to implement in a large engine)

Why?

I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.

It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.

I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.

Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.

Whoah, I never said I wasn’t interested in the exchange, only that I wasn’t interested in the topic.
As someone who’s extremely insistent that it’s grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I’m shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you’re persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else’s point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there’s no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That’s abundantly clear.

My point is that you’re being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you’re directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.

I believe what they’re referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.

Because of the untested nature of the situation, it’s unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.

We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.

Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.

It’s not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it’s not the “rebellion” people want to make it out to be.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/2024_Reader_and_Donor_Experiences/Content_Discovery/Wikimania_2024,_"Written_by_AI"_How_do_editors_and_machines_collaborate_to_create_content

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries

It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it’s supposed to go. It’s not resistance, it’s all of them being on the same team and talking.

Eh, that’s not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn’t research, it’s just indicating what something is.

The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that’s representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.

It’s similar to the various charts and animations.

Yes, but…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download

That’s because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.

There’s hardware required to shunt the display out the USB port and since it’s not a super in demand feature they usually don’t implement it. As such the software for looking nice while doing it isn’t as developed.

But yes, it’s been in developer settings for years, and was usable if your hardware supported it.

Yes. And now it’s native in all android! Samsung helped make it!

It’s good when things get better.

I mean, I’m here so my politics are predictably best described as “complicated”, but you can elevator pitch it as “human rights; morality and utility are different; context is everything”. France does more to improve the human condition than north Korea, so I much prefer France, although some of their actions are also not great.
I do know the type you’re talking about. Quite frustrating indeed.

Most of the point of my comments was purely to say that that type of hawkish mindset exists, initially for the purpose of clarifying things for the original comments question.
Beyond that, I just don’t feel I have reason to doubt his words on the subject, including beyond the speech.
They’re consistent with his actions, not particularly uncommon, and stubborn in the face of reason since it views the reasonable opinion as specifically weak.

I can’t speak for the veracity of the claim that it was intentional itself, since I don’t have the information.

… What are you even talking about anymore?
Nothing I said has anything to do with the world not being as it seems or being controlled by a small group of people.
Acknowledging that some public figures have expressed the belief that we’ve been insufficiently aggressive in wars and foreign policy over the past decades is hardly conspiratorial thinking.

Shill is still a skilled job

What does that even mean in this context?

I didn’t ask you to prove anything. You were reassured that the people in Afghanistan being in charge here meant there was someone who would cut off any of the idiocy certain types of people think make a good war. I wondered why, given the administrations rhetoric, their willingness to fire people who might push back, who they’ve put in charge, and what those people have done.

What specific conspiratorial world view do you think I’m going to express?
I think some people think we could have won in Vietnam or Afghanistan if we just hadn’t “held back”. They’re not secretive about that opinion. I think those people have political power right now because I see no reason not to believe them when they say so and they seem to be behaving in line with that belief.

I’m unsure why you think him having no relevant experience makes him less likely to hold a profoundly awful opinion. If he had experience I’d be more likely to think it was just talk, but given the lack of experience, being a talking head, and the company he keeps I see no reason to think he’s secretly holding different opinions.