estebarb

There are countries where drug consumption/posesion is penalized too. There is a similar example in other area: For instance, in Sweeden, Norway and Belize selling sex (aka prostitution) is legal, but buying it is not legal. So, your example actually exists in world legislation.

I'm just asking where are we going to put the line and why.

I think that is completely different. Piracy websites do only one thing. Chatbots are different.

My concern is that where are we going to put the line: If I type a copyrighted song in Word is Microsoft liable? If I upload a lyric to ChatGPT and ask it to analyze or translate it, is it a copyright violation?

I totally understand your line of thinking. However, the one I'm suggesting could be applied as well and it has precedents in law (intellectual authors of crimes are punishable, not only the perpetrators).

However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead? The same way social networks are not liable for content uploaded by users? I think here there is a somewhat double standard.

Of course, maybe OpenAI et al should have get a license before training on the lyrics or to avoid training on copyrighted content. But the first would be expensive and the latter would require them to develop actual intelligence.

To be fair, everyone is committing this crime: Amazon, Google, IBM... as a native spanish speaker, I have never wanted to read documentation in spanish: it is usually of lower quality, not up to date and uses translations of technical terms that make it impossible to reconcile with the rest of the literature (I'm looking at you, dragon book translation. Nobody says "canaletas" instead of "pipelines").

At least before the translations were done by profesionals, but now they are done with tech capable of hallucinating new stuff itself... I'm trusting translations even less than before.

The reason I started with Linux when I was 9yo (1999) is because we bought a computer and PC Magazine gave away a CD with Corel Linux. So I did what obviously must have been done... thankfully the disk came damaged, otherwise my lawyer dad would have learned the importance of making backups XD.

So, I would suggest: try to get a throwaway computer, give the kid it and an USB with Linux and let them alone. Do not force anything, just give them the tools and a gentle push. Let curiosity take the wheel and be prepared to answer a lot of questions.

Not from one token, from one embedding. Text contains a low amount of information: it is possible to compress a few token embeddings into a single tiken embedding.

The how is variable. The calm paper seems to have used a MLP to compress from and ND input (N embeddings of size D) into a single D embedding and other for decompress them back

Just a reminder that "insurance covers" doesn't mean society doesn't pay for it: all the people pay for it. The insurance company paying causes prices raises for everyone else, same country and abroad. So the whole world ends up paying more for that "insurance coverage": more for the product, more for the insurance, more in taxes that fund public free healthcare...

The CALM paper https://shaochenze.github.io/blog/2025/CALM/ says it is possible to compress 4 tokens in a single embedding, so... image = 4×256=1024 words > 1000 words. QED

That would explain why they never do anything against obvious financial scams.

Something I noticed recently is that titles of youtube videos are automatically translated.

I'm convinced that nobody in Google speaks more than one language, otherwise they would have never done that. It is impossible to turn off the unsolicited translations in search, and now youtube. I'm scared that soon they will force up audio translation as well.

WebOS died in HP, after they bought Palm. I'm genuinely impressed at HP: somehow they always have the future in their hands... and kill it.

"Investigators believe Bushart was fully aware of the fear his post would cause and intentionally sought to create hysteria within the community"

Someone tell the LHC at CERN folks to avoid Tennessee...

Not really. From what I understood of the interview is that her complain is not about money or compensation (which she may be entitled to), but about how people use the technology and how they interact with it and with her. Legal process or even the companies implementing policies won't change that problematic society behavior.

Since the raise of generative AI we have seen all sorts of pathetic usages, like "reviving" assesinated people and making them speak to the alleged killer in court, training LLMs to mimic deseased loved ones, generative nudification, people that is not using their brain anymore because they need to ask ChatGPT/Grok... some of them are crimes, others not. Regardless most of them should stop.

Conservative people tend to protect their believes, no matter how wrong they are based on new evidence. Humanity has many examples of this happening through millennia, it is widely documented...

That would mean that Earth has not cleared its orbit... therefore... is Earth not a planet?

/Justice for Pluto/

That is half true. It also would be a USA without Apple, Nvidia, Google, Tesla, Intel, Qualcomm, Yahoo, Paypal, eBay, Pfizer, P&G, Goldman Sachs...

Between 1921 and 1965, about 9.6 million people were admitted as lawful permanent residents. That's not what I'd call a "very small" or "highly restricted" inflow.

Source: DHS Yearbook, https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table1...

There are studies regarding that: almost half of S&P 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children https://www.brookings.edu/articles/almost-half-of-fortune-50...

A common problem in latam and other geos is brain drain. Most of their best minds simply leave the country looking for better opportunities. That is impactful for the countries economies, the country invest a lot in people,but others see the benefits.

During last century, USA has been the most benefited from that kind of immigration.

Personally I think that this is a very short sighted decision by USA administration. But overall, I think that this will benefit the rest of the world. Maybe in a few years even USA will start exporting their best minds abroad!

I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?

I'm afraid that website was hacked. It only redirects me to fraudulent raffles and casino stuff such as https://cdn.aucey.com/sweeps-survey/1034/es.html

Except that... we have history of them not working well. For instance, the Sony rootkit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo...

We cannot expect those rootkits to be properly supported long term for any security issues they may cause. I would think that the solution is simple: nobody forces them to make their IP available in non hacked computers...

If they want a hardened computer to deliver their IP, then they should sell their own hardware. But forcing their blocking into the whole stack is not acceptable.

For instance: I cannot see any udemy or netflix content from my computer, because their IP protection blocks the lenovo docking station I use to connect my monitors to my MBP... each part is standard! And somehow nobody tested that scenario. So, no, that tech is barely tested, it must not be forced into any computer.

Not really. Many countries emit digital signatures that could be used to prove that someone signed something. We would just need to convince countries to use that same infra for companies. So it may be possible to require everything to be properly signed, without requiring everyone to be bound to certain company wishes.

Thanks for the answer. For instance, usually those containers are used as indexes in DBs, so they contain pointers to data, not the data itself. That is an scenario where the references shouldn't be invalidated.

Idk if it may be possible to introduce "semantic monitors". Say, a field within a class and an external container must be updated together. In practice the only time when I have needed to break the single ownership is for keeping internal data views. I know it is safe, but convincing Rust of that is painful.

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly. So, if I have a hashtable, adding or removing an element would invalidate existing pointers to any other element in the hashtable? I guess it makes sense from a memory release POV, but... I end up thinking that for databases using GC or RC is a better approach. Maybe I'm biased, but I have found far easier to work on databases written in C or C#. For that kind of programs I felt Rust overrestrictive and forcing to more dangerous patterns such as replacing pointers with offsets.

I don't get it. Isn't it like forcing the foreign competitor into buying your only chicken that produces golden eggs. I really don't understand the logic behind this.

It is hard to understand how it works from the explanation, but seems to be only useful for really sparse bitmaps. But in a general case, I don't see how it is better than roaring bitmaps.

I don't understand HPE: they bought Aruba, already had a strong wired switches division. They also bought Cray, which obviously has their own advanced networking expertise. And now Juniper?

It is not like they lack in-house talent, they have it!

In my experience it works better in more constrained and repetitive domains. For example: it is better doing a Ruby on Rails website than a ASP.NET web service.

Particularly, with data structures it is garbage: it nevers understands the constrains that justify writing a new one instead of relying on the ones from the standard library.

And finally, it is incapable of understanding changes of mind. It will go back to stufd already discarted or replaced.

The worst part of all is that it insists in introducing its own "contributions". For example, recently I have been doing some work on ML and I wanted to see the effect of some ablations. It destroyed my code to add again all the stuff I had removed on purpose.

Overall, it provides small typing/search savings, but it cannot be trusted at all yet.

It is particularly annoying with Google. They recently forced results translations, which are of extremely bad quality. So, even if I'm searching for computer science topics or machine learning (where I'm only interested in English results) they insist that I must speak spanish and read useless translations.

I ended up switching to Bing just because this issue. Google is absolutely useless for me now.