You want an mp3 player with no DRM lockin and proprietary store and so on? Sorry, that's not competitive anymore. That will not happen for the same reason people don't make affordable dumb TVs anymore. The manufacturer needs a way to spy on you or get recurring revenue some other way.
There's basically no such thing as "bare C++" anymore. On any modern machine you are relying on piles of code. You can't just write to registers to edit vram and output video like on some 80s computer. It all happens on top of a thick stack of APIs, drivers and firmware.
Yes, ultimately the problem is that the law is vague or inadequate. The courts have their definitions of fair use, which are their best efforts at interpreting the law, and I have mine, which is different.
Yeah, I can't AB test against a world without copyright at all, but I think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a lot of stuff would never have gotten done without copyright to ensure it could be done gainfully.
The importance of striking a balance between incentivising creation and enriching culture was why the original copyright term was dramatically shorter. The modern term of owners life + 80 years or whatever it is, is clearly ridiculous. 20 years before entering public domain seems pretty reasonable.
There's unfortunately also some pressure against people using legitimate public domain works. E.g. youtubers getting copyright strikes for playing public domain music because it's too similar to a specific copyrighted recording.
I assume they meant that gaming is the main market segment it serves, which from my understanding is correct. The X3D chips have great performance in games, which are generally constrained by memory latency. It's, of course, still a general purpose CPU that can do many things.
Right, it's about incentivising intellectual work. While I have big issues with the copyright system, like all the extensions lobbied for by Disney and friends, it did enable a lot of good work to happen.
As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind China, who doesn't give a shit about intellectual property, but that doesn't mean we aren't crossing an ethical boundary, acting like them.
ASMLs machines can easily be "one of the most sophisticated" without stepping on LHC or ITERs toes. I'm not sure ISS qualifies anymore. I would have went with JWST.
I wish I could say that funding the US or Israel or China was better. It's not all equivalent, but pretty much every major country is supporting atrocities in one way or another, today.
You don't need to rehash the same old argument. Runtime memory management is forgiving but also inferior in a lot of ways to compiled stuff that works with memory deterministically.
Garbage collection is a method to make programming easier, not to make the resulting program better.
Yeah, I have fixed issues that could have potentially destroyed the company I was working at. There was an instance of a lazily written script which just took user input for a file open. It could read sensitive files on the system because of lazy development. The other devs praised me for fixing it, but I didn't get any recognition comparable to the losses our company could have had if it got exploited.
Paleontology has been really helped by the ease of sequencing, to the point where many evolutionary arguments are moot. Humans are apes, birds are dinosaurs. Some people still dispute it, but not with evidence on their side.
Not much more complicated than IPv4. There are more bits. The addresses are longer. It's not hard to grasp if you understand the prerequisites to understanding networking in general.
We need models that are smarter than humans. So far, the cost of an AI query + training is dwarfing the effort it would take to teach an intelligent human how to do a task. We are dumping an incredibly amount of money/effort into making AI do stuff when it's still not competitive with humans, because dumbass people are controlling investment. The stock market is not a replacement for competent investment. The fact people buy meme coins shows how fucked we are.
Deceiving people is not a sustainable business model, but it is the most prominent one in the US right now. Lie to the public, sell them stuff that's bad for them at too high of a price, get rich quick, then act confused when your economy collapses because the victims of your grift can't spend anymore.
LLMs aren't like a screwdriver at all, the analogy doesn't work. I think I was clear. LLMs aren't useful outside the domain of what they were trained on. They are copycats. To really innovate on software design means going outside what has been done before, which an LLM won't help you do.
> There is absolutely no reason why software today has to be written like software of yesterday.
I get what you're saying, but the irony is that AI tools have sort of frozen the state of the art of software development in time. There is now less incentive to innovate on language design, code style, patterns, etc., when it goes outside the range of what an LLM has been trained on and will produce.