I very much understand wanting to have a say against our data being freely harvested for AI training. But this article’s call for a general opt-out of interacting with AI seems a bit regressive. Many aspects of this and other discussions about the “AI revolution” remind me about the Mitchell and Web skit on the start of the bronze age: https://youtu.be/nyu4u3VZYaQ
John Oliver had a segment on this that may help convince people that it is real: https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks
What you describe is more or less the Nordic economic model, except the basic income. Corporate abuse is low, because it is not unthinkable to “not work” in response to such abuse, but also because unions are strong. Nevertheless, a lot of people still work a lot, so it doesn’t completely change the work/life balance oddity op is posting about.
These two are not interchangeable or really even comparable though?
For GNU Make, yes they are. These are fully comparable tools for writing sophisticated dynamic build systems. “Plain make”, not so much.
[cmake] makes your build system much, much more robust, far easier to maintain, much more likely to work on other systems than your own, and far easier to integrate with other dependent projects.
This is absolutely incorrect. I assume (although I have never witnessed it) that a true master of cmake could use it to create a robust, maintainable, transferable build system. Very much like there are people who are able to make delicate ice sculptures using a chainsaw. But in no way does these properties follow from the choice of cmake as a build system (as insinuated in your post), rather, the word we are looking for here is: despite using cmake.
I apologize for my inflammatory language. I may just have a bit of PTSD from having to build a lot of other people’s software through multiple layers of meta build systems. And cmake comes back, time and time again, as introducing loads of obstacles.
Thanks for giving the link and making this an easy 1-click thing. Just donated.
On the topic of things to never forgive Redhat about, aren’t there other things that are more pressing? Like, inventing a whole scheme to circumvent the idea of the GPL license via service contract blackmail?
I couldn’t agree more. If there only was a somewhat user-friendly setting that allowed the oom killer to be far more aggressive, killing or freezing processes as soon as their memory use starts to affect system responsiveness, and just tell me this is what has happened.
ADA should be the lawful good.
Bash is chaotic neutral.
Java is lawful neutral.
Javascript fits ok as chaotic evil.
Move ASM to neutral evil.
And maybe f77 as lawful evil.
Ärlig fråga: ni som är på team blå, hur tycker ni själva att det går just nu?
Jag är inte någon stor anhängare av endera av koalitionerna, men har inte sittande regering lämnat spelplanen? Bortkollring av elstöd (som enda land i Europa), kronan historiskt låg vilket spär på inflationen relativt andra länder, vars ökning också leds av stigande matpriser på tveksam grund (matkoncernerna gör storvinster), övergivna miljömål, ett försök att stoltsera med en kommande NATO-anslutning istället för att säkra den i det tysta först har placerat oss på en väg av olyckliga omständigheter mot koranbränningar, höjt terrorhot, och potentiella inskränkningar i yttrandefriheten. Har de faktiskt gjort något bra i all denna röra?
I understand LLaMA and some other models come with instructions that say that they cannot be used commercially. But, unless the creators can show that you have formally accepted a license agreement to that effect, on what legal grounds can that be enforceable?
If we look at the direction US law is moving, it seems the current legal theory is that AI generated works fall in the public domain. That means restricting their use commercially should be impossible regardless of other circumstances - public domain means that anyone can use them for anything. (But it also means that your commercial use isn’t protected from others likewise using the exact same output).
If we instead look at what possible legal grounds restrictions on the output of these models could be based on if you didn’t agree to a license agreement to access the model. Copyright don’t restrict use, it restricts redistribution. The creators of LLMs cannot reasonably take the position that output created from their models is a derivative work of the model, when their model itself is created from copyrighted works, many of which they have no right to redistribute. The whole basis of LLMs rest on that “training data” -> “model” produces a model that isn’t encumbered by the copyright of the training data. How can one take that position and simultaneously belive “model” -> “inferred output” produces copyright encumbered output? That would be a fundamentally inconsistent view.
(Note: the above is not legal advice, only free-form discussion.)
While a broad concept, in the context of your question, science is a metod to derive knowledge from observations.
Alternatives to the scientific method is to guess or to obtain knowledge from others. (Most other ways I can come up with, e.g. “religion” can still be sorted under these two.)
Obtaining knowledge from others is great, but may not always be available, and the quality of the knowledge derived this way depends on the reliability of the source.
For the other alternative, every sensible metric shows how science is a better method than guessing to derive knowledge.
But, “speedy” relative to what? Relative to the walls of the room your are inside? What if you are in a falling elevator? Relative to the rotating surface of the earth? To the center of the solar system? “Relative to the portal” is the only answer to that question that makes sense.
I was incredibly confused why everyone seemed to think the YouTube channel with fun physics videos was the scum of the earth, until I realized they are named Veritasium and not Veritas.
How can it not be b? Every situation in the Portal games is already exactly like this, but with the portal fixed to a slab that moves with the rotation of the Earth, whereas in the drawing the portal moves as the sum of earth rotation + the movement of the train.
Treating the question seriously, I think it is easy to think the one person is the right choice, because it just seems like less of a mess to deal with. However, I also think the end result is that you will never feel safe in your home again. You will always second guess if every squeak you hear is yet another person who somehow have made it into your house. This is the path towards slowly descending into madness.
Internal monologue: "But wait, will it come off as impolite if my reply is this short? I better add something about how I’m sad to hear that they are sick. And maybe also something that I hope they will get better soon. Hmm… how do I say that without sounding like I expect them to be better soon-- that they can and should feel allowed to recover at their own pace? But, now it sounds as we don’t need them at work-- I also want them to feel missed. Also, is there a risk they take ‘rest up’ wrong?, as if it is their fault they are sick because they haven’t rested enough?-- I’d better soften up that formulation. Then, how do I start this email? ‘Dear x,’ seems too formal, maybe ‘Hey,’ – no, that sounds like ‘Hey listen up!’; maybe I’ll just skip the greeting to make it feel more like a casual conversation. Do I still sign the email? With “Regards?”, “Best regards?”, “Sincerely?”, “With wishes of swift recovery?” Should I also cut the email footer to make it seem less formal? What if they need to forward this to show that they have my permission? In that case the formal footer is probably useful… etc. etc.