Ukraine as well. One is a story about why you should try to aquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and the other is a story about why you should never give them up, even if you think it’s a bad idea that you have them and have serious doubts that you could maintain them safely or use them effectively.
It’s like goddamned advertising for nukes.
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.
If he had praised them and then did it, it simply would have made this joke not work.
does that question make you feel uncomfortable?
No? Seriously. You’re fishing for drama and cognitive dissonance where there just isn’t any.
The fuck is wrong with you? It’s making fun of him for deriding something and then immediately being angry that NATO, the useless thing we don’t need, didn’t help.
You’re fishing for drama by missing the point of “trump is a buffoon”.
Obviously fake launch picture. Have you ever noticed that our images of rocket launches increase in quality at nearly the exact same rate that our ability to simulate smoke on graphics cards increases?
It’s like they’re not even trying.
Totally. I think some of the issue is “coffee cup” vs “cup of coffee”, with one being the volume of the mug and the other being the amount of coffee in said mug.
With the medical advice, I think it kinda deliberately vague, since you can’t be that precise at home and they don’t know the number that precisely to begin with.
I believe the standard cup of coffee is defined as 8oz/250ml. With interview studies like that it’s harder to get exact measurements so they have big error bars and rely on having a standard reply to show the person how big a cup is.
Technically, what they end up concluding is that people who drink an amount of coffee they would describe to someone with a clipboard as 2-3 cups are less anxious. I’m willing to bet there’s a good correlation between between that and drinking between 400 and 750 mL of coffee a day as well. :P
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This image seems to explain it.
Proton is the windows compatibility layer. Lepton is the android compatibility layer. FEX translates x86 (most desktop computers) applications to run on ARM (most mobile devices).
So do you think 30 year olds should be considered children, legally? Some intermediate thing where they get some rights but not all?
Adulthood, as a human concept as opposed to a strict biological classification, is a medley of biological, legal and social definitions. Do you exist in society independently, or under the explicit social umbrella of your guardian? Do we find you legally capable of bearing guilt? Are you physically mature?
Can you answer those questions with an fMRI? We can estimate age with one, but that just gets back to where we are now. We can measure brain connectivity, which is associated with the frontal cortex properties we associate with responsibility. The inflection point we see is around 15, and the growth rate after that is largely subsumed by the margin of error between individuals. We can also see that the brain doesn’t really stop developing those connections.
None of that answers the primary questions of what constitutes adulthood for humans.
Given that the comment thread started with assertions about how 29 year olds act and behave in society and what’s to be expected of them responsibility wise, it’s clearly a discussion about the social aspects of adulthood, not the biological measurement of brain maturity.
They’re still not talking what you’re talking about. They listed a set of specific activities and behaviors they believe 29 year olds engage in to say they’re not adults.
They eat children’s food, have no money saved, no proper furniture, no hardships, and they ask their parents for advice. (Having parents you respect the opinion of and asking for advice is evidently childish).
That’s an extremely patronizing view on 29 year olds.
You’re talking brain development studies. That has nothing to do with adulthood.
Not all cops in all places are all bad all the time. They’re always part of a deeply broken system and all the other parts of the usual rant about cops, but that doesn’t mean they never do a good thing.
Most cynically: it’s basically a free bump to their performance numbers.
Most leftishly: a business called, which is closer to who they work for.
Most probably: theif was still there and someone was close enough that they’d be doing more than taking a meaningless report to file.