jjcon

> https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

They also lose a lawsuit on the day of that tweet (and the drop was pretty typical for that day on the market) so I'm not really convinced their stock was altered much by a fake tweet.

Is anyone requiring boosters for work, study or travel? Not to my knowledge.

And yet despite that these countries have much much higher rates of booster vaccination than the USA does (not to mention there are dozens of other countries not listed in your comment with similar policies to the USA). I think this has more to do with how the health agencies in these countries choose to communicate than anything else; that is I don't think the wording and nuance of all recommendations can be directly compared so easily.

Norway: 70% Boosted

Denmark: 63% Boosted

Australia:56% Boosted

Sweden: 71% Boosted

Finland: 74% Boosted

USA: 34% Boosted

SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina...

Flu shots don't require human trials either, should covid be all that different (genuine question) if so why?

> but however similar they are (or might become), they are legally distinct

Untrue - this legally falls under the million precedent cases that have come before it - if the derived work (be it by algorithm or by human brain) is substantially transformed it is perfectly legal.

Again not directly though and that is all that matters - I can reproduce the getty watermark in photoshop but that doesn’t make adobe liable. The fact that a tool is capable of copyright infringment does not shift the legal burden anywhere - it is totally beside the point. Technically photoshop’s ‘content aware fill’ could fill in missing regions with copywritten content purely by chance but the burden is still on me if I publish that content, not on adobe. Legally speaking these are tools just like any other algorithm or machine out there, their sophistication and particular method is not particularly relevant (again legally speaking).

But it has lackluster options for music and audiobooks last I checked - something that I need just as much as tv shows and movies

If I use photoshop to recreate a copywritten work - they don’t have to redistribute photoshop or change it in any way. The originals are not being shipped in the models but the models are capable of recreating copywritten work. These are tools just like photoshop.

If it is interpolation what kind of interpolation is it? Linear? Bilinear? Nearest Neighbor? Lanczos? No… because it isn’t and doesn’t resemble anything close to interpolation.

They even gave a linear equation in their example… again not even close. If we can call what these algorithms do interpolation - we can call what humans do interpolation too - it makes the word that meaningless

So is any scaled up process unethical or is there another comparison you are trying to go for here?

Notably in your example both are certainly legal just varied by the level of controversy around them and on that level I would agree. Scaled up processes do tend to attract more controversy.

I don’t post my private data in public places and expect everyone to stay away from it. Maybe I’m missing the contradiction somewhere else?

> It's a sophisticated interpolation, not so different from linear interpolation: a*x + (1-a)*y

These algorithms are specifically non-linear a far cry from ‘linear interpolation’ unless you want to water down the meaning of interpolation to be so generic it loses its meaning.

Having said all that - the sophistication of the algorithm is beyond the point here as long as what they are generating is substantially transformative (which >99% of the possible outputs are legally speaking).

There is so much art that is creative commons and public domain I’m sure a worse ‘pile’ could be conjured up to start things out. Then just as we have seen with other architectures, as they refine, their need for data can drop and eventually we are back in the same place, maybe a few more years removed but back in the same place nonetheless. That is my take at least.

Personally, I don’t think it is likely that copyright laws will change to protect against algorithmic usage (too much precedent in more general reuse cases and for what is considered transformative). Having said that I also don’t think this will be the death of artists by any stretch, some industries will need to change or evolve but it will be just another tool in an artists belt IMO.

Certainly, don’t mean to imply they are (legal distinctions aside). A person can create an algorithm (or use an algorithm) and create new things, even works of art.

> You just don't understand the math.

This is not in good faith, please read HN rules.

Rather than attack me (calling me foolish, swearing at me) why don’t you rebut my ideas and have a conversation if you actually have something to contribute.

I’ve read the papers, I’ve worked personally with these systems. I understand them just fine. Notice that I said earlier: “regardless of how simple they are”. I understand you are trying to water them down to be simple interpolation which they definitely are not but even if they were that simple it wouldn’t change the legal calculus here one bit. New art is being generated (far beyond any ‘transformative’ legal test precedent) and any new art that is substantively different from its inputs is legally protectable.

Yes… we all do that every day. Humans don’t exist in isolation, we build and learn from other’s accomplishments from the wheel to the printing press to the computer. Modern impressionists don’t owe royalties to Monet but they certainly draw from and learn from his contributions to the art world. Brand new material from art algorithms (frankly regardless of their sophistication) certainly deserve and fall under this same legal treatment.

> Starve the machine, it doesn't exist without having your work to interpolate.

But again… aren’t people the same way? Noone exists in isolation. The Sir Isaac Newton quote comes to mine:

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

Edit: to be clear - these algorithms are specifically non-linear and are a far cry from ‘linear interpolation’. Yes they do involve matrix multiplication that does not make them interpolaters unless you want to water down the meaning of interpolation to be so generic it loses its meaning. Having said all that - the sophistication of the algorithm is beyond the point here as long as what they are generating is substantially transformative (which >99% of the possible outputs are legally speaking).

I’d love to use Jellyfin someday. Right now it doesn’t have broad enough support or the app ecosystem that I need. I use every OS and tvOS under the sun in my family. I need music apps for my music and audiobook apps for my audiobooks, so far I have only found this in plex (in addition to the video/tv/movies app).

The regulatory approval is a world first - they are happening all over the world already though

How exactly were they greedy in particular? To me it seems they are doing what every other company is, I’m unaware of Meta engaging in anything greedy that is out of the ordinary, is that not the case (genuinely asking) and why do you think that is tied to these layoffs?

Yeah I think a correction is likely - haven't seen anyone being nearly that pessimistic (or optimistic probably if you're younger and in the USA) but shifts from 5-15% depending on the market have been predicted by plenty of firms.

If you look at the national picture in the USA prices haven't really budged by much at all, it would seem reasonable that they will but when and by how much is the million dollar question:

https://www.zillow.com/home-values/102001/united-states/

https://www.redfin.com/us-housing-market

> so sales will drop off a cliff as we're already seeing with mortgage companies doing mass layoffs.

Certainly, but read these articles. the expert economists and firms. While that may be true it is also true that far fewer people will sell their homes and very few homes will be built exacerbating an already 20 year problem of under building. The USA will have a low demand and low supply problem in the short term but the low supply problem is likely to persist for quite some time (just as it has for the past decade).

3 cherry picked cities in the USA? Here is a better source that is national (USA):

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS

Listings are still very low compared to pre-pandemic levels not to mention by many metrics there was already a shortage before the pandemic stemming all the way back to the great recession. Some interesting reading:

https://usafacts.org/articles/population-growth-has-outpaced...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/10/26/housing-mark...

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...

> All they hear is "Firefox bad, so I'll stay with Chrome."

Which is exactly what I am suggesting people do in my comment (note I go on to say why I see it as a good thing that the Chrome renderer is taking over). I didn’t just criticize your critique I suggested why I thought it was wrong on multiple levels but somehow that got missed in most of these threads. Mozilla won’t win on ideology, they have to win by being a superior technology.

> So I ask that you think of the unintended consequences when criticizing in an extreme manner.

What is this supposed to mean then? The implication is that we think of the greater good when formulating our criticism - something I am saying is the opposite of productive. We should attack Mozilla's incompetence head on, not give them a pass for deeds in a bygone era.

> Is it not? I honestly can't think of anything I'd want it to do more than it already does.

Give me 4x less battery draw and I'll try Firefox again, I want to use and like Firefox but every time I give it a go power usage remains a massive issue. I get at least 4x less power draw in the same activities on chromium based browsers and safari.

> So I ask that you think of the unintended consequences when criticizing in an extreme manner.

I don't think hiding our criticism for "the greater good" is an appropriate path forward at all. Mozilla and Firefox have real problems and plugging our ears while they go up in flames isn't going to help. At least if we are vocal in our desires they have a chance to listen and right the ship (if there is any hope of that at this point).

Personally I'm all for the standardization around the blink engine (which has been contributed to by Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Intel and tons others) at this point. I see it as similar to the internet backend standardizing around linux. It makes it way easier for developers to reliably test against an ever evolving and complex web.

> I am not personally convinced that the decisions to get up and move are the deterministic result of physical laws that follow directly from the initial conditions at the Big Bang

Then that is a religious or philosophical conviction… not a scientific one. Believe whatever you want just don’t confuse the two.

> Example?

Take just about anything from the reinforcement learning for ai agents domain - I'm particular to neuroevolution examples. Here's a simple one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb4LAT3cJfM

No behaviors preprogrammed just a simple simulation environment with environmental constraints.

> Humans are certainly not "hardwired" to prove mathematical statements, yet they do.

Umm... yeah we are? We're just chemical reactions and physics, there is no escaping that. Are we extremely sophisticated and complex, absolutely but that doesn't make us nondeterministic in any meaningful or special way.

> it's clear that the human mind has a property that the current generation of AI agents does not emulate at all

Certainly but it is a matter of degree, not a matter of possessing an ill-defined concept like "consciousness" which is what I was responding to (Unless we want to call "consciousness" an emergent phenomena arising from complexity -I'm fine with that - but the word is loaded with plenty of other connotations so I find its use counterproductive personally).