danlitt

I presume you mean "the maximum physical limit of bad ethics" rather than any particular ethical standard.

Omarchy is basically just Arch with a bunch of configuration. It's not a particularly useful project, and the author is noted fascist DHH. So probably not worth your time.

I don't think there is a technocratic solution to this problem. Very rich people are using their money to DDoS the internet, for no good reason. We just need to identify these people and fine or imprison them until they stop doing it. Residential proxy providers would be a good start.

> it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to generate the weights

It cost hundreds of billions of dollars to generate the training data, they just didn't get paid.

I think the sheer magnitude of the economics have made the scales fall from a lot of people's eyes. For decades people put stuff on the internet for free on the assumption it was "not worth" anything. It turns out that as soon as that commons can be enclosed, we can marshal hundreds of dollars for every single living human, to pay for this commons to be repackaged. The money is there, and we're happy to spend it, we just won't spend it on you.

If LLM training is found to be a fair use (looks likely), no license will help.

Not Stalin: https://klangable.com/blog/quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-ow...

I think this post finally convinced me shells are awful and should be avoided.

This does not sound like an accurate description of "rational agents". A rational agent may value something less because of a perceived second-order effect (e.g. "If I accept a price hike, there will be more price hikes in the future"). There's nothing non-rational about that.

In general, the "rational agent" abstraction is so flexible it can represent almost any real-world behaviour (which is why it's a bad model, not that humans are fundamentally irrational in some way).

That specific conclusion is unaffected, but that doesn't make it okay. If they used fake numbers, but the conclusion were still the same, you presumably wouldn't think that was okay either?

I had to look 3 times to see what you meant. That's pure evil!

Interesting fact, but the slop filler is distracting.

I don't think it makes sense to say you "made money" when you still have an open-ended liability active.

This joke only works if you actually impose a cost on AWS of 1.7 billion. If they just serve you a bill for no reason, it's still your problem.

This presumes that it is reasonable for a seller to remove the capacity in principle to buy the digital good. They might refuse ever to sell a copy again, and only permit renting it. Since copyright grants a long monopoly this opens up scope for crazy market distortion - you could, for instance, delete the Beatles discography from the entire world until the price doubles. This tends not to happen, but there is nothing preventing it, and it seems inherently wrong.

That is not an innocent explanation, any more than someone breaking into your house to adjust your thermostat.

Same reason people give postgres, php, or any other program a user account.

The comment I'm replying to said "no skill is involved", not "less skill is involved".

I don't understand this comment at all. "At least 1000 words" would require at least the skills of writing decently & writing a moderate amount based on little. I get that getting to exactly 1000 requires some skill, but how on earth is that the only skill involved?

Did you read beyond the first sentence? This reply makes no sense if you read the whole comment.

> 3d printing control laws that are being passed in NY

The "don't print guns" laws? What lobby would that be? I actually agree that the US is very vulnerable to lobbying and that 3d printing restrictions are dumb, but I have no idea how you connected the two.

> i dont think there is any software on the planet that i would consider "truly life changing"

I don't think there is any software on the planet that has accumulated 1.5 trillion dollars of otherwise-useful money!

Please explain. That is exactly what the linked case established.

For someone who finds this "not unintuitive" you sure are confused!

"Just like I can learn from a book" - ok. Are you allowed to go to libgen and download a book in order to learn from it, because learning is a fair use?

You have to admit that "downloading every book ever written for free from a repository of books that is itself illegal to compile and to run, in order to write a text generation tool" being legal is at least unintuitive, to put it mildly.

The code is not eligible for copyright. If they do not give you a copy of the source code, that does not matter. And if you don't know which parts were generated by LLM, you can't safely reuse the code.

I don't think I would conclude you're a moron. I don't think you really "hold everything in your mind's eye" when you understand something. I don't know how I do it or how it really works (nobody does). But the fact that the agent logs resemble how I might talk while thinking doesn't really give me much confidence (since chatbots can resemble all kinds of behaviour they're not actually doing).

I read and understand the code using my brain, by constructing a mental model and reasoning about it. An AI can't do this because they don't have mental models and don't do reasoning.

I seriously thought this was a joke the first time I read it. Are people really able to work like this, understanding nothing and just poking the machine until it does your job for you?

This reply is so far removed from the comment you replied to I'm worried you replied to the wrong one. They did not mention anything about people who haven't built anything, startups with no users, and having no references - you invented that. They literally only mentioned elite schools. "drafting mediocre players" is incredibly bad faith, when one of the only things they claimed was "does not matter how good of an idea you have". Having a good idea is the only qualification for an incubator!

Look, if you think people who go to elite schools have all the good ideas, just say that. You don't have to wrap it up in high-minded pragmatism.