21·
7 days agoWhy?
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.
- 0 Posts
- 661 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 11th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
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/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.
2·2 months agoI 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.
I mean, they’re already replaced people with people like I was describing. That’s not a hypothetical.
“he” referred to hegseth, who you seemed to be assuming probably didn’t believe the rhetoric he was using.
No one asked you to prove a negative. You expressed that the war being waged by the people who were in Afghanistan was a reassurance that they cared about the optics of brutality. I asked why you think that, given the things that happened in Afghanistan. “Things they’ve done” aren’t somehow irrelevant anecdotes.
We’re talking about the distinction between people who think civilian casualties are justifiable as opposed to those who think it’s a tool.
Sure. Unless they were fired for being “woke” and replaced by people who think bombing Iran will help usher in Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
What has he done to make you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt? What in this administration makes you remain confident that somewhere deep down there’s a responsible adult who’ll calm things down? They bragged about letting Elon musk fire all those people.
Why do you think the people who ran Afghanistan wouldn’t bomb a school? They bombed weddings. Hospitals. Shot children.
You say that, but also… They specifically said this wasn’t going to be a “politically correct war” with “rules of engagement”.
This is the generational turning point America has waited for since 1979 and since the rudderless wars of hubris
No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win
Remember that while sensible people know optics matter, there are people who think the problem with Vietnam was that we were too soft on them, and too soft on domestic political dissident.
Those are the people currently in power. They are not competent military thinkers. They view strength the same way the people who were blindsided by our loss in Vietnam viewed it. We can’t lose because we have more weapons. If the enemy is still fighting it’s because we haven’t bombed hard enough. Anyone who wants to hold back is weak.
It actually didn’t. The carpet bombing and flattening of cities didn’t make the population want to give up or turn on the military.
The first nuclear weapon didn’t either.
The second made the emperor inclined to surrender, when paired with a declaration of war by the Soviet Union.The civilian population never posed a significant threat to the stability of the military or imperial rule.
People aren’t generally idiots, and will lean towards supporting the people fighting the people who are hurting them. You may not like them, and you may want them to do something else, but you’re unlikely to trust the party that is currently trying to kill you.
“Take off your armor and we’ll stop shooting” just isn’t a compelling argument.
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)