I've got some heavy reader friends and they keep complaining that many of Spains's fantasy book translations are ridiculously bad and blatantly machine translated now: Senseless terms that require looking up the original to understand, e.g. "fall" translated as in falling when it meant autumn; proper nouns, including character names, sometimes translated sometimes not; and many sentences that mix up the grammatical gender because the machine wasn't given enough context to infer it.
But these publishers don't get punished because they keep licensing popular foreign franchises, which aren't quite fungible, so consumers don't want to miss out and thus don't vote with their wallets.
Unfortunately the answer is no. Reading or just owning a book by a certain author can be a matter of fashion or prestige. That allows for really bad work still be published.
I remember having more visual thinking until preteen, but then it gradually turned into a monologue and I hate it, because I can tell I got slower at mundane thoughts even if it helps me think through complex stuff.
Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. Yeah there's a chance it's wrong, and they'll need to catch up to new models, but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read; at least Pangram's accuracy can be measured.
> Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply.
No it literally does not apply is the point of the article. Please read what it is about and what it says instead of asking for spoon-feeding.
> but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read
Again, your instinct is not something that matters to anyone other than you. But you are presenting Pangram as fact and doing on a moral crusade (I WILL NOT READ ANYTHING PANGRAM SAYS AS AI). You can also have an instinct that "THIS IS WRONG" and go on crusade but you will naturally understand your foundation is not solid at all.
Lastly, if your instincts serve you well why are you outsourcing yourself to another instinct? Is it for yourself or to say to others "LOOK AI CONTENT LOOK AI CONTENT!!!"? Is that purely to serve your interests of filtering what you read or are you using it in the wrong way here?
The text you linked simply says that for individual analysis instead of bulk one, there will be false positives. I already acknowledged that, and I still need some filter anyway whether you want me to have one or not. Mistaking your blog posts for an AI under a fairly low false positive rate is a sacrifice I'm willing to make; I'm not grading college students here.
Also, I'm not presenting Pangram as anything, much less said what you just claimed I said. You might be mistaking who you're talking to in this thread, either way you clearly aren't debating in good faith.
Legal would remember to pay the fee for their abandoned works, just in case, while the rest of the company does nil with them. I'd rather address the issue directly and expire the copyright after X years since it was last published.
Then again Disney's old "vault" strategy would counter it, and Nintendo is already toying with it to sell through FOMO. How can it be this hard to make companies keep our digital culture available for sale? It's not even charity.
It's okay if Legal does that. The idea isn't to prevent companies from owning copyrighted works long-term, it's to prevent the waste of abandoned works. There are thousands, if not millions, of works that could be cleanly reused under my proposal.
I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument. I'm just saying that my proposal would be a lot easier to put in practice than anything that hurts companies. The strength of the proposal is exactly that companies will mostly shrug while creating a very clear legal separation of what's "active copyright" and what's an "abandoned work".
By the way, this would also apply to the GPL (and other copyleft licenses).
> and when I asked why it did that even though I expressedly asked it not to
Just be clear, it can't know, and by asking you're just making it roleplay as someone excusing themselves.
It's very unlikely that the choice to remove the comment was driven by an internal monologue based on learned criteria that it can refer to. The sampler most likely picked tokens to remove it while writing the patch, because that's what the statistics modelled, and that's it.
And who seeds it? If you're going to pay a host to seed it, they might as well just provide HTTP and let you add them as a web seed to your torrent, which we could be doing already.
But if you don't pay a host to seed it, either the host's business model won't play well with torrents, or there's no host and a torrent will rot.
Ok I stand corrected, Rob Pike is no fool, I agree the comment seems flippant and a little silly, I guess theirs a few people who shun syntax highlighting.
tonksy also has some interesting opinions on syntax highlighting - not necessarily against highlighting, but taking a more minimalist stance against how highlighting is typically done: https://tonsky.me/blog/syntax-highlighting/
I'd say it's the other way around than escape analysis. The method ABI can always scalarize value class types without escape analysis, but if they ever need to get type-erased or written atomically you end up with extra allocations for what would have been a single object before. Similar to boxing value types in C# really.
Even a smart compiler can't break the program semantics, and without a closed world assumption it simply can't assume that an entirely different part of the program doesn't expect to observe object identity for a type.
Java is adding small, orthogonal features that amount to the same feature set as value types in other languages, but can be cherry-picked into existing code for partial advantages without significant changes. These value classes are still nullable, lack a guaranteed layout, and can't be observed torn, unlike in C++/C#/Go.
And the big limitation is the rule that object writes can't tear - while this remains in place, it means that only tiny value classes will get any of the performance advantages being discussed, on regular processors. Specifically, the largest guaranteed atomic norma read/write in x86-64 is 64 bits, so any class that is larger than that (say, a pair of longs, or even a pair of ints until we get non-nullability) will not be compactible. An array of 1M (long, long) pairs will hold 1M pointers to (long, long) pairs allocated in the GC heap, forever. An array of 1M (int, int) pairs will as well, but in some future release when non-nullability makes it in, it will actually work as hoped.
Torn reads are probably coming as a separate attribute to opt-in. It's technically already there but not stable, and I don't think it does anything yet to unbox values on fields/arrays.
Right, I didn't mean those are bad things! Just that value classes don't change the semantics of regular objects as much as value semantics do in other language. I like that the remaining features will be orthogonal and opt-in.
Go isn't even memory-safe under data races, because they don't want to pick between slower loads (like .NET's Memory<T>.Span) or removing fat pointers. Meanwhile the JVM never had value types until now so they'd silently break a lot of code if a single keyword applied willy-nilly introduced torn reads like struct does in C#. It's coming but as a separate opt-in.
But these publishers don't get punished because they keep licensing popular foreign franchises, which aren't quite fungible, so consumers don't want to miss out and thus don't vote with their wallets.
reply