> Lacking Copyright (or similarily a Public Domain declaration by a human), we don't receive sufficient rights grants which would permit us to include it into the aggregate body of source code, without that aggregate body becoming less free than it is now.
Can someone explain this to me? I was under the impression that if a work of authorship was not copyrightable because it was AI generated and not authored by a human, it was in the public domain and therefore you could do whatever you wanted with it. Normal copyright restrictions would not apply here.
Data theft of service or piracy from the web and "AI" users content are used in the model training sets, and when codified the statistical saliency is significant if popular content is present.
For example, when an LLM does a vector search, there is a high probability of pirated content bleed-though and isomorphic plagiarism in the high dimensional vector space results. Thus, often when you coincidentally type in "name a cartoon mouse", there is a higher probability Disney "Micky Mouse" will pop out in the output rather than "Mighty Mouse". Note Trademarks never expire if the fees are paid, and Disney can still technically sue anyone that messes with their mouse.
Much like em dashes "--", telling the current set of models to stop using them inappropriately often fails. Also, activation capping is used to improve the models behavioral vector, and have nothing to do with the Anthropic CEO developing political ethics.
LLM are useful for context search, but can't function properly without constantly stealing from actual humans. Thus, will often violate copyright, trademark, and patents. In a commercial context it is legally irrelevant how the output has misappropriated IP, and one can bet your wallet the lawyers won't care either. No, IP is not public domain for a long time (17 to 78 years) regardless of peoples delusions, even if some kid in a place like India (no software patents) thinks it is..
This channel offers several simplified explanations of the work being done with models, and Anthropic posts detailed research papers on its website.
Many YC bots are poisoning discourse -- so this thread will likely get negative karma. Some LLM users seem to develop emotional or delusional relationships with the algorithms. The internet is already >52% generated nonsense and growing. =3
The quoted content said that "Lacking Copyright (or similarily a Public Domain declaration by a human), we don't receive sufficient rights grants which would permit us to include it into the aggregate body of source code, without that aggregate body becoming less free than it is now." I was explicitly asking how this meshed with my understanding of copyright, at least in the United States, which requires that a work of authorship be authored by a human and not by a machine; where a work is not authored by a human, copyright protection does not subsist, and therefore the respective work is in the public domain. And I was further asking for an explanation as to how including a work that is AI-generated (aka in the public domain) made "... that aggregate body becoming less free". Unless my understanding of copyright law and court precedent is massively off the mark, I am confused as to how less freedom is aforded in this instance.
The precedent case in the US formed a legal consensus that "AI" content can't be copyrighted, but it may also contain unlicensed/pirated IP/content.
Thus, one should not contaminate GPL/LGPL licensed source code with such content. The reason it causes problems is the legal submarines may (or may not if they settled out of court with Disney) surface at a later date, as the lawsuits and DMCA strikes hit publishers.
It doesn't mean people won't test this US legal precedent, as most won't necessarily personally suffer if a foundation gets sued out of existence for their best intentions/slop-push. =3
I believe designating an entity a supply chain risk has far deeper implications than the DoD avoiding that entity, and goes as far as a lawful prohibition for any contractor of the USG being also prohibited from using or working with the entity so designated. Ironically enough, if the comments in this discussion are true that Palantír uses Claude, Palantír would've also been prohibited as well.
I think that's what the common reporting implies, but I'm not confident that it's true. My understanding is that a supply chain risk must specifically be involved in the supply chain, hence the name. It may be that the admin hypes up their powers for the purposes of instilling fear, but as evidenced by this very post, they can be wrong.
That very quoted section indicates the analysis has not been made public. IMO that's very fishy and makes me question the authenticity of the source. What is Dr. Thornton hiding, exactly? Why conceal the review, methodology and data? Even if preliminary it should be released.
Multiple reasons, but leg placement on the hip means direction change at pace puts more stress on joints, and the cycle appears to cause problems for reasons that AFAIK are still unknown.
It wouldn't shock me if some sports are impacted, but I also know that there are some vocal people on both sides of the opinion that would scream regardless of the outcome.
However we have examples like Ellia Green who, if we used "conventional wisdom" wouldn't have won in the mens Rugby Olympics.
The one thing I've learnt is that things that sound important rarely are.
I mean yes but why keep the analysis private? I can think of very few reasons to do that, and one of them is because they know their methodology or data is flawed or inaccurate and they don't want people figuring that out. Obviously this is speculation but I would think they would want data like that to be public, since we want more data on things like this, not less.
I read this title, did a double-take, then had to go look at the git hub because it still didn't click for me. Because this sounds absolutely amazing, and absurd, and weird, all at the same time. Like..... Wow? Talk about turning protocols into pretzels...
> had to go look at the git hub because it still didn't click for me
Obviously it still didn't click for you or you're lying about looking at the GitHub, because if you did, you'd have learned that it's not using DNS to run DOOM, only to store it. Which...shouldn't really be a surprise to anybody who knows that DNS TXT records exist.
And obviously your forgetting that doing this is from my perspective a very novel idea and I didn't consider a TXT record as a data storage system. Good grief.
In a way it still is true. Swift works on Windows and Linux until it doesn't. It's taken until a couple years ago for other build systems to get swift support (which I suppose is the fault of said build system, but Swift taking so long to be cross-platform contributed to that), and even now it (still) doesn't quite work right. C interop is a mess requiring hacks to generate clang modules to actually get Swift to see them (and CMake for example provides no easy way of doing this, or last time I checked it didn't). Oh and Swift tends to take over the linker and compilation pipelines when you enable it, at least with CMake, because... Reasons? I honestly don't know why. It causes very weird errors when I integrated Swift code into my C++ project that were a pain to actually diagnose. I eventually got it working, but still, it wasn't simple or seamless.
I don't understand this immediate reaction. What is it with people getting bitchy the moment a project starts asking for donations? Are people really that greedy that they would want something to be free forever? I mean sure, a corporation like MS might rug-pull like this (the freemium model or worse), but come on, guys, this is the Document Foundation that we're talking about. Unless I missed something massive, they have never once done anything like this, and it would be really, really weird for them to suddenly start doing this now. And they aren't the only OSS projects asking for donations, either. Are we going to crucify everyone who wants donations now?
I wonder how many of the complaints are “real” and how many are propaganda.
LibreOffice has been an alternative to MS Office for a very long time. Including when Office was quite expensive at its cheapest. I can imagine there has been plenty of anti-libreOffice seeds planted in that time that are still bearing fruit.
Donation and tip fatigue. Can't go anywhere without being bombarded with beggars. FOSS used to not have this, people got that you were supposed to have a real job to support yourself, not cultivate a discord club of beta orbiter patreon paypigs, as is the modern style.
This... Is a really weird take. Really. Maybe, just maybe, people want to dedicate full time to OSS? Maybe they can't find a job? A donation is just that, donations. Quite different, I think, from a tip, in that there is no cultural pressure to donate as there is for tips. If you don't want to donate, don't. But don't complain when people kindly ask for them. (Also, a tip (especially online ones) is very different because, unlike a tip, you actually know the donation is going towards the entity your donating too, instead of you not knowing if the tip is going to the person it should be going to or if it's going to the company operating the service.)
What fearmongering has the anti-systemd crowd been selling you? Genuinely curious because I wish I wasn't running systemd. My perspective is that the things they (we?) are saying are basically correct. But the service manager works well enough that most distros have accepted the downsides.
> it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux?
Considering it changes nothing on what they actually work on on systemd I would give this a yes. Every time I hear "they will do this or that" it just never really happened. So far it feels more like "the boy who cried wolf" than "slippery slope" to me. But maybe I am missing something?
A lot of the devs have always here and there added features for secure/measured boot and image based OSes and things that make them more usable to daily drive (hermetic /usr/, UKIs, sysext, portable services, mkosi, DDIs, ...). A lot of the things make image based systems more modifiable/user accessible without compromising on the general security aspect.
If they really wanted to lock in Linux users to a single blessed image from them they would have had a better chance when Lennart was working at Microsoft (which generally is the only preinstalled CA) instead of starting a "competing" company (they are targeting a different niche from what I understand).
This, and locking down everyone to a single blessed Linux distro would be... Rather difficult given how widespread Linux is and just how many distros exist. It is one thing for each distro to decide "Hey, let's use systemd". Gnome requires it but that's Gnome; there is nothing stopping you from using XFCE, or I3, or KDE, or... It is a totally different thing to make every Linux distro stop working (and have said distro go along with that) because that distro isn't the "blessed" one. Microsoft can pull this off because they're Microsoft and they have total control over one of the most dominant operating systems. Apple can pull this off because they're Apple and control everything from the hardware upwards. Linux is neither of these. I would go so far as to argue that the BSDs have a better chance of pulling off something like this than Lennart does. RedHat may have a lot of influence in the Linux world, but it certainly doesn't have some secret god mode switch it can flip and universally make every distro conform to it's wants and desires.
> it is really fearmongering when the systemd people literally founded a company to develop attestation for linux?
Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they intend to force this on you without any way of disabling it, or that they have already done so? Because unless they plan to do this (and you have concrete proof of such and not just "well they could do this" claims) or they have already done it across a significant portion of the Linux distribution ecosystem (and no, distros voluntarily switching to systemd is not forcing anyone to do anything), this is fearmongering. Simple as that.
Why shouldn't they? They're constantly being told by CEOs and big companies that AI is going to take all the jobs and do all the things. They're told the same by AI boosters who only see utopias and not the consequences of said utopias. Of course they're going to insulate from AI as much as possible. Especially given that society still pretty much requires that you work to be successful in the world. The utopian dream of "you'll never have to work again, you can just do anything you want" is a very very long ways off, but it's being pushed hard as though it will be in the next 3 years. But society is still pushing the "you must work" message too.
Edit: of course, the "long ways off" assumes that that dream is even possible and isn't just that, a dream. I question whether even that is possible given how we are still split under hundreds of nation states and can't even unite on the most basic of things.
This, and add to that the fact that web apps make it trivial for the dev to just randomly change the GUI out from under me without my consent or ability to prevent it, and, well, wonder why I and so many others dislike them? I want to be able to refuse app updates, thank you very much.
Not really. Because the biggest problem with LLMs is that they can't right naturally like a human would. No matter how hard you try, their output will always, always seem too mechanical, or something about it will be unnatural, or the LLM will go to the logical extreme of your request (and somehow manage to not sound human)... The list goes on.
Can someone explain this to me? I was under the impression that if a work of authorship was not copyrightable because it was AI generated and not authored by a human, it was in the public domain and therefore you could do whatever you wanted with it. Normal copyright restrictions would not apply here.
reply