JoshTriplett

Only insofar as more careful review. Otherwise, no, they shouldn't. Exactly the same policies on content should be applied uniformly to everyone.

I'm all for copyright no longer being a thing. Until that's the case, I don't want the world in which AI companies mass-violate it but individuals still get punished for that.

I want the world in which fanfiction is completely legal and the best of it is sold in bookstores. I want the world in which projects emulating macOS in the cloud, on non-Apple hardware, are widely used and legal. I want the world in which the many video game decompilation and enhancement projects are 100% legal. I want the world where every single creative project someone wants to build that draws upon the work of others is legal.

And until we have that, if AI is going to mass rip off all our work and use it to compete with us, I hope copyright is one of many tools used to burn it to the ground.

> Last I checked I couldn't set full hinting.

That setting is there in GNOME Tweaks; I'm looking at it right now.

(I'm not trying to dismiss the concern, here, but AFAICT the setting isn't missing.)

> Gnome 3 [...] removing settings I care about (such as font antialiasing settings, which I need to change to not get literal headaches, subpixel AA is awful as is anything blurry).

1) That setting still exists, it's just less prominent.

2) Subpixel AA is no longer the default; the default is grayscale, because it works well on all screens in all orientations.

There was precedent, in the form of music. Music did get wildly better than "buy a CD", and the norm for music purchasing is zero DRM and files you own forever. So it wasn't an unreasonable expectation to hope the same would happen for video.

It really doesn't.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/a-computer-can-never-be-held-...

No self-driving cars that aren't transparent about exactly how they work. (Ideally, no anything that isn't transparent about exactly how it works.)

That's a bug, and it would be an awful mistake to replicate that bug rather than fix it.

> The bitter lesson is finally coming for the self-driving cars.

Maybe, but the opacity level of models is not acceptable for cars. "Why did it drive under the semi?" "Model said to." "Why did the model say to?" "shrug"

You can trust someone to know the details and reasons for why something happened, and still want to provide the specific direction of "what are you doing to make sure it doesn't happen again". The organizational default is often to explain a fault (or worse, focus on blame) without specifically working to find a process improvement to prevent it from happening again.

So, the primary advantage of this over bubblewrap is the insulation layer between the program and kernel syscalls?

If you don't need to share passwords between people (other than manually), Firefox Sync is perfect.

Sadly they don't accept donations, but send it to your favorite channel's Patreon or similar.

Partly true, though to a first approximation, the reason we don't build more houses isn't an issue of construction labor costs. Many places with jobs don't allow building homes.

(That's not inherently a universal problem, especially if you're talking about the entire labor market. But it's a problem in many places.)

Sure, but there's a difference between a fear being tenuously plausible but overblown/stoked, and a fear being flatly incorrect and inverted. The former is harder to counter. The latter still has the standard problem of lies propagating faster than the truth, but it at least theoretically should be countered by the truth.

At least in theory, many people perpetuating this myth are at least nominally convinced that it must be obviously true, because the zero-sum thinking is simpler than the reality.

Of course, the other problem is people going "my anecdote beats your study", because they personally know someone who blames immigration for losing their job, and a study of people in general still lets someone go "ah, but that's not always true".

> Equally striking is what did not happen. Employment of low-skill American workers at losing firms did not increase. Across all firms the effect of foreign hiring on US employment was zero or positive, and in a prespecified subsample of rural firms it was significantly positive, with an elasticity of 0.61, meaning that for every one percent increase in H-2B workers there was just over half a percent increase in US workers.

> "If you don't allow firms to hire immigrant workers, they just become smaller firms," Lewis said. "They are not replaced with US workers. Instead, the output of the firm shrinks, and there are fewer total workers."

This is incredibly important. Everyone who fears immigration is going to take their job should read this and realize that fear is not only false but inverted.

Yes, it should. But this is also why you use uBlock Origin to block tracker scripts.

It is absolutely the case that some things people wrote about AI and LLMs in the past is no longer true; it's a fast-changing area.

It's also the case that some things remain true. If someone says "don't use them for X because their quality isn't good enough", that's a recommendation with an expiration date. But if someone says "don't use them for X" for any number of other good reasons, that recommendation is often timeless.

"Can it" is changing rapidly. Much more rapidly than "Should it".

Some people want to have an experience with their printer. Some people want it to be an appliance. If you wanted an appliance, and got an experience, you're going to be disappointed.

For people who genuinely wanted the experience of exploring 3D printers, like yourself, I'm very happy that those people got that experience.

For myself, just as I want to print documents and not have adventures with inkjet printers, I want to make things and not have adventures with 3D printers. Which is why I have no plans to own a 3D printer.

> The lie has been heavily sold to the maker community that you are "wasting your time if you make something yourself" since it is cheaper to offshore even small 3d prints and machining projects.

I've seen what people go through when they operate 3D printers. The impression I have is that they still make 2D inkjet printers look like paragons of reliability.

It absolutely can be.

Suppose you're trying to reverse-engineer some proprietary tool, for instance. If you're doing that with human experts, you pick experts who haven't seen the code of the tool, or any disassembly of the tool, or any potentially tainted non-clean-room analysis of the tool.

Even if you have two separate AI instances do the RE and the reimplementation (which most people don't), the AI you use may well have been trained on the proprietary source code, or on any number of disassemblies/analyses/reimplementations/etc that aren't clean-room.

That's doubly true when people do ridiculous things like AI reimplementations of publicly available GPLed source code, where the AI definitely was trained on the GPLed implementation.

Can't believe how right we were, too.

The word for that is "crux".

Also a great way to disagree collaboratively. If you can collaboratively find the crux of each others' arguments, you now know both know exactly what would change each others' minds, and you can find that information together and know what's correct.

This is true of code, as well. LLMs have a strong tendency to make suspiciously prompt-shaped comments and code. "This deliberately does not do X". "This is kept in its own module rather than put in module M because". They act like they're responding to a conversation that's no longer there.

> Have it rewrite your terrible first draft.

> Have it fix your grammar.

> Have it make your argument clearer.

> Have it turn your 2,000-word ramble into something people can actually read.

Please don't do this, and then try to "put some of yourself back into it".

By all means, use AI to find bugs. But don't let it write a single word. Let it tell you what's wrong, then you can fix it and iterate.

Anything done with an LLM is not a "clean room".

> Illicit access as defined by Google / Apple?

No, illicit access as defined by a user who doesn't want anyone but themselves to have access.

Remember the iPhone jailbreaks where you visited a website and the website exploited the phone and installed a jailbreak? That was a remote security exploit, and any other site could have done that too and used it less benevolently.

Users should have full control over their devices. They shouldn't have to get it via exploits, and it's a good thing when those exploits are fixed, because they're security holes that can be used to harm the user.

The author works at Anthropic, so probably idle capacity in Anthropic's datacenters.

I remember the days of DOS and getting a direct pointer to video memory. And I've enjoyed the long history of video game exploits and even arbitrary code execution. But at the same time, I'm also glad that era is over. The same bugs that help you jailbreak a phone can also be the bugs that help you gain illicit access to one.

Preparing a derivative work, and distributing that.

> replace whole-file hashes

BLAKE3 has a whole mechanism for this, and as an added bonus it'd be substantially faster.