Right. But if you do all of that in service of the collective goals of the project, you are, by definition, not a grifter -- unless the project is itself grift.
(Which it might be, because AI)
254 karma · joined November 21, 2024
(Which it might be, because AI)
I dunno. The whole thing is wobbly really.
Like, the post says "You want a grifter leading a complicated engineering project".
No, you really, really, really don't.
Grifting is always a form of aberrant behaviour -- manipulative, cruel, deceitful, larcenous. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty, I don't know why you would choose a word for a quadrant that requires you to clarify that you do not mean to associate its actual meaning with the behaviours in that quadrant.
"Politician" (albeit with a small p) is a much, much better word for the personality type in the description.
Politics is only sometimes a form of aberrant behaviour.
The level of education UNESCO is talking about is not enormously challenging: "Minimum reading proficiency for the end of lower-secondary education means students can connect main ideas across different text types, understand the author’s intentions, and draw conclusions based on the text."
So yes, I think that is a reasonable objective for 12-15 year olds that should be available to everyone by virtue of proper education alone.
Indeed it is very difficult to give a 12-15 year old a proper education if they cannot do this. It's foundational. So one would almost expect any 12-15 year old who can be taught _anything abstract_ at an appropriate level to be able to do this.
The alarming thing about the data shown here is that it includes children who are not even in education, which would skew it down a lot in, say, "third world" countries, but should not be skewing it so much in western countries, and yet... slightly more than one in five of UK and US 12-15 year olds lack this skill according to that assessment.
Some of this might be fundamental reading challenges (visual impairment, dyslexia, attention and memory), but still, it is not a particularly good sign for the global figure if these rather ordinary western countries are scoring so low. (Singapore and Japan manage more like 85%)
The full explorable graph appears to be here for 2023 data -- I can't find it for 2024.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-children-reachin...
If the AI produces chunks of training set nearly verbatim when prompted, it looks like copying.
> And if so, why isn't someone learning from said work not considered copying in their brain?
Well, their brain, while learning, is not someone's published work product, for one thing. This should be obvious.
But their brain can violate copyright by producing work as the output of that learning, and be guilty of plagiarism, etc. If I memorise a passage of your copyrighted book when I am a child, and then write it in my book when I am an adult, I've infringed.
The fact that most jurisdictions don't consider the work of an AI to be copyrightable does not mean it cannot ever be infringing.
Photomator on the iPad is more capable than Photos on the Mac.
Frankly I think this is an acqui-hire. I think Photomator will significantly boost the capabilities of Photos, back to an Aperture-level app. I think some of the features may even end up in the camera.
Pixelmator, I don't know. I think a whole bunch of Pixelmator features do make sense as a tab/workspace in Photos, actually, but either way I don't see Apple keeping it called "Pixelmator"; I would expect to see it called "Images" (to go with Pages and Numbers, and with photo-specific stuff left in Photos).
I have it upside down/diametrically wrong, however you see fit. Right that structures exist, exactly wrong on how they apply.
It is registration that guarantees access to statutory damages:
https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/infri...
Without registration you still have your natural copyright, but you would have to try to recover the profits made by the infringer.
Which does sound like more of an uphill struggle for The Intercept, because OpenAI could maybe just say "anything we earn from this is de minimis considering how much errr similar material is errrr in the training set"
Oh man it's going to take a long time for me to get my brain to accept this truth over what I'd always understood.
It certainly used to be a legal device people used.
Essentially it is low-budget notarisation. If your family member believes they have something which is timely and valuable, it might be better to seek out proper legal notarisation, though -- you'd consult a Notary Public:
(ETA: This paragraph below is diametrically wrong. Sorry.)
AFAIK in the USA, registered copyright is necessary if you want to bring a lawsuit and get more than statutory damages, which are capped low enough that corporations do pre-register work.
Not the case in all Berne countries; you don't need this in the UK for example, but then the payouts are typically a lot lower in the UK. Statutory copyright payouts in the USA can be enough to make a difference to an individual author/artist.
As I understand it, OpenAI could still be on the hook for up to $150K per article if it can be demonstrated it is wilful copyright violation. It's hard to see how they can argue with a straight face that it is accidental. But then OpenAI is, like several other tech unicorns, a bad faith manufacturing device.
Wiring it in like this is suboptimal because this way you might never see the LED light up if a still photo is surreptitiously captured. This has been a problem before: illicit captures that happen so quickly the LED never has time to warm up.
Controlling the LED programmatically from isolated hardware like this is better, because then you can light up the LED for long enough to make it clear to the user something actually happened. Which is what Apple does -- three seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjzhUCl3gXg
Since you're not selecting the enclosed area to extrude (which is how the older RealThunder implementation works), but instead the edges, shapes will need to be drawn out as edges if you want to extrude just their intersecting parts.
e.g. if you wanted to pad only the intersection of a Venn diagram of two circles, you cannot, without breaking the circles into arcs.
You could use the Split Edge tool twice on each circle and then make the two new vertices on each circle coincident. But this can be really tricky to constrain. You could also draw out the arcs independently on top of two construction geometry circles.
As I understand it, this "feature" is largely a consequence of the new TNP mitigation code. You can do other things as a result, like select the edges of a hole on a part and extrude that.
It does not work in the Part workbench yet; that has more possible outcomes for extrudes I guess.
It's now also possible to have multiple separate solids in a single body in Part Design: