wrasee

It's equally naive to believe FUD spread on the internet, without evidence.

But I would love to see more informed insight/discussion on this.

But, how is that different to any of its other output? I am sure there are many references to concepts of self-preservation in its training set that models will mimic just like all other concepts in its training set.

Would you like some toast?

Please tell me there was a mixup and for some reason they didn’t show up.

Hardware is hard. It doesn’t always have the transparent composability that software has because you hit physics and the real world.

The example already given makes the point. Work has been great on the M1 but my understanding is that this has not translated all that well to e.g. M2, M3 and M4.

What’s CJK input? I’m guessing Chinese Japanese Korean?

True, but remember what’s quiet to a human may be quite different to what’s quiet to a hedgehog. When reading about these things it’s surprising how often things that we might not consider - like how vibrations travel though the ground - can confuse wildlife in ways that we might not expect when viewed through an anthropomorphic lens.

Unpopular opinion here but I wonder how much of the justification for piracy in this thread, broadly around what is perceived to be unfair business practices (“if only the terms were fairer and I would pay”), would actually stand up if the terms were actually fairer but the prices higher.

Or how much is really just the simple rational economic idea that piracy is better value for money.

Yes I considered the same but decided to keep the point simple.

And I still can’t help but think that if there really was a large market of people willing to pay a premium for a more permissive access model then we might already see trends in this direction. My hunch is the most folk don’t really care and price remains the dominant factor.

The essential point of the article was that it’s higher prices that’s pushing people towards piracy (either through price rises or fragmented subscriptions). It wasn’t that it is the restrictive streaming model that is pushing people towards piracy.

I’m fact it was precisely this restrictive streaming model that was the one to finally beat piracy. At low prices, that’s already been proven and it’s higher prices that is brining piracy back.

Supply and demand might argue that if there was real demand for something like this that people were actually willing to pay a lot of money for, then the market would be all too happy to provide.

I think the inconvenient truth here is that when anyone has got close to doing such a thing the price has been high enough that it turns out nobody actually turns up to pay for it, not at least outside a small niche.

Some words are overload with more than one meaning. That’s like, a thing in many languages.

The uncertainly over a future rug pull is always real, but in reality I wonder if the actual reason for people's hesitancy is more than just that. In reality I suspect it's closer to one of simply identity and the ownership model itself. Just the very idea that core tooling you depend on is in the hands of a commercial company is enough to many back off in a way one might not be when the tooling is in the hands of a broader community that one can support on more equal terms.

@woodruffw I love your quote above that commits you to your open source base and I'm rooting for you. But how about an approach that commits you to this sentence in a more rigorous and legal way, and spin off your open source tooling to a separate community-based entity? Of course, upon that you can continue to maintain sufficient representation to make Astral's commercial products the natural progression and otherwise the model remains the same. That would be a significant transfer of control, but it is that very transfer that would get a overwhelming response from the community and could really unblock these great tools for massive growth.

I work a lot with LLVM/Clang and whilst i know Apple and Google are significant contributors I feel confident that LLVM itself exists outside of that yet accept that e.g. Apple's contributions afford them weight to steer the project in ways that match their interests in e.g. Swift and Apple tooling.

So refreshing isn’t it? It’s like having an OS that’s actually designed for you, not them. Imagine!

Occasionally I will boot into a Windows partition because I have to do something windows-only. I’m so out of the Windows world these days that I mentally have to prepare myself not to get too fired up with it all, just calm down do the thing and get out. :)

Agree that it’s a lot of effort to switch though, so good for you on making the switch!

I've found being able to read assembly more useful than writing it.

For those writing in compiled languages like C/C++ and particularly with an interest in performance it's been very helpful just to be able to read compiler output and see what it's generating. Takes the guesswork out of it, removing the uncertainty by simply being able to see what the compiler is actually doing. You can just write code and see the result, who knew!. It's actually helped my understanding of C++ in seeing the bigger picture.

Of course it's also much easier to learn just to read a little disassembly than actually write the stuff. I'm sure I'm not alone in that for me Compiler Explorer (https://godbolt.org) was my gateway into this. You can get quite far even if just knowing the basics (I'm no expert).

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to simply say that politicians are elected, and are nothing without votes.

A politician isn’t even a practicing politician without votes. Democracy is ultimately driven by citizens. Of course politicians will do their best to influence public opinion (it’s their job) but are ultimately in service to it though elections.

It’s why what people think (and vote) matters in a democracy.

And back to the point, why voting with your feet (switching to Firefox) actually means something.

In a democracy it’s actually the other way around, over time at least. Politicians follow votes.

Except they have. They issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, the Hamas military commander who if arrested would almost certainly stand trial.

Of course that won’t happen now since Israel got to him first.

Prosecution isn’t actually the issue, the ICC have issued an arrest warrant for him.

“All 125 ICC member states, including France and the United Kingdom, are required to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter the state's territory”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...

If you have no idea why this is the top comment then that explains so much. You say you live in Israel, I wonder how much of the international perspective cuts through to your general lived experience, outside of checking a foreign newspaper once in a while? I doubt many even do that.

Almost everything you said is technically true, but with a degree of selective reasoning that is remarkably disingenuous. Conversely, the top comment is far less accurate but captures a feeling that resonates much more widely. Netanyahu is one of the most disliked politicians in the world, and for some very good and obvious reasons (as well as some unfortunately much less so, which in fact he consistently exploits to muddy the water to his advantage)

From a broad reading on the subject it’s obvious to me why this is the top comment.

That’s obviously no justification, all corruption is in someone’s favour. Society functions by rules. Break those founding principles and you break everything.

A nice thing about this approach is that it passes more control to the user who is essentially now responsible for resolving the dependency graph themselves and “be” the executor. Taking your cooking example, the declarative nature better exposes where there are open choices in what to do next, which affords the user more freedom to take into account other externalities and constraints not formally specified in the makefile (like specific orderings that make washing up easier).

Of course the tradeoff is that you have to resolve the dependency graph yourself. That’s more work on you when you just want a set of pre-serialised, sequential steps to follow.

I think you missed the point. The claim is that AI training from public information is no different from humans learning from public information.

My argument is precisely that the mechanisation of information is fundamentally different from the scale at which a human can learn. One immediate consequence being there is no longer a natural brake on the scale of what can be sourced for use in a derivative work.

To be clear this is not a value judgement, just to point out that it _is_ different, just as driving is fundamentally different from what one can do with one’s own feet. Of course the mechanisation of transport is history and seems daft to argue against. But it is different. Whether that’s good or bad is a much harder question.

The fundamental difference is that computers can do this at a pace and scale that humans could never aspire to. There is a natural limit to the extent a single individual can be informed by previous works. It sets a natural pace to innovation that is sustainable for both the artist and derivative works.

Computers have no such limitation and can consume almost the entirety of a subject’s work in a few weeks or months. I think that alone is enough to say that yes, it is fundamentally different.

The article you probably didn’t read.

Presuppose that the following argument contains the solution.

This is my solution.

All of that is true, but technological choices aside it doesn’t take away from all of the points made by the parent.

I took that as the somewhat the point, and I think it was insightful. Your app will still be worse, but worse as result of your poor technology choices, not the arguments made here. Put together it may still be a bad move, but you would still get the greenfield effect.

I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that, among other reasons, choosing this kind of structure means that precisely this kind of argument can be made to solicit donations to help fund certain parts of the picture yet therefore but indirectly allow more of other income to remain available for allocation elsewhere.

Hence the allocation of that “other income” is still very much a related concern, but with just enough indirection that Mozilla can evade scrutiny of it when it comes to executive pay.

Yes but is it not always that simple? You see this a lot. I mean, OpenAI is controlled by a non-profit. There are ways to structure things as a firm deems to their advantage and companies are very good at this sort of thing.

To me it just somewhat communicates a kind-of bad faith in company spending priorities and demonstrates that my donations might have greater impact elsewhere. That’s all.

I, personally, would find it hard to donate to Mozilla knowing the CEO is paid $6 million a year. Compared to the size of the firm that’s a huge amount of pay.

At this point I plan to donate to Ladybird instead. Excited for that project.

No, just basic judgement and prioritisation, which are valuable skills for an employee to have. The OP was effective at finding the right information they needed to solve the problem at hand: In about an hour, the OP knew enough about PPP to fix the bug and submit a patch.

Whereas it's been all morning and you're still reading the RFC, and it's the wrong RFC anway.

I know who i'd hire.