They don’t seem to realize that higher level languages help us understand the code. Language models will be similarly capable of reading the binaries they ship. So what they doing is hiding code from users, not machines.
To clarify, I don’t mean right now. They haven’t been sufficiently trained on machine code and that lacks some semantic help. But the future they fear will have transformers just as capable with lower level code.
I’m not defending it, but I think it is because it is a big ticket purchase / decision, and that other person reached the same conclusion. So they are at least in some small part similar by some axes. And I think relationships really work that way. The universe is made up of many circles / relationships, and the more overlap one has with another, or the smaller those rings the closer the relationship. Cars are just a fairly tertiary one.
Yep; same as it ever was. The arms race continues. At least until Butlerian Jihad arrives.
But if ya keep the camera rolling.
It is so silly. Often people are unable to distinguish between bad companies doing bad things that are bad for economies, environments, and people and genuinely impressive technology. Like somehow, both can’t be true.
There are third party objective metrics showing these models performing in ways that fascinate me know now but would absolutely have blown my mind in the 80’s.
But around these parts, much of what one hears is “glorified autocomplete that isn’t even good at that”, and it just sounds like flat earthers incapable of having any perspective outside a worldview.
Everything VictorMono offers, exactly as offered. Also good for me to be able to distinguish O, 0, and Ø.
Might be worth include a link to what you want to show.
Popples?
This is a fantastic video that can teach a lot about transmission protocols and encryption.
Correct, it is now colder there than 50 millions years ago. Which indicates nothing about the rapid warming taking place now over a few decades.
Also says he is charged not convicted which further complicates publishing details I assume.
No. They found evidence they grew there. …Millions of years ago.
Just read the next two paragraphs. Don’t just stop because you got to something that you like. The equivalence I draw is clear. You don’t like it, and that’s okay. But one would have to clarify exactly what the ban entails, and that wouldn’t be as clear as you might think. LLM’s only, transformers specifically, what about graph generation, other ML models? Is it just ML? If so, is that because a matrix lattice was used to get from input to output? Could other deterministic math functions trigger the same ban? What is a spell checker used RNG to select best replacement from a list of correct options? What if a compiler introduces an assembled output with an optimization not of the authors writing?
Do you see why they say “The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry”?
And that still affects copywriteability, not license compliance.
As the agency overseeing the copyright registration system, the Office has extensive experience in evaluating works submitted for registration that contain human authorship combined with uncopyrightable material, including material generated by or with the assistance of technology. It begins by asking “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry. If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output. For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of ” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.
This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. For example, a visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image, and a musical artist may use effects such as guitar pedals when creating a sound recording. In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship.
What this makes clear is that it certainly isn’t black or white as you say. Nevertheless, automation converting an input to an output, simply cannot be the only mechanism used in determining authorship.
And that wouldn’t change my statement anyway, but rather supports it. The person submitting a patch must be accountable for its contents.
An outright ban would need to carefully define how an input gets converted to an output, and that may not be so clear. To be effectively clear, one would have to potentially end the use of many tools that have been used for many years in the kernel, including snippet generation, spelling and grammar correction, IDE autocompleting. So such a reductive view simply will not suffice.
Additionally, copywritability and licenseability are wholly different questions. And it does not violate GPL to include public domain content, since the license applies to the aggregate work.
I suppose there should be no code generators, assemblers, compilers, linkers, or lsp’s then either? Just etching 1’s and 0’s?
Seems like a reasonable approach. Make people be accountable for the code they submit, no matter the tools used.
Oh yeah, you’re a special kind of special.
It is kind of maybe a tiny bit about what you do… Setting the two names aside, it’d probably be worse to have somebody kill a billion people than to want to kill a trillion?
The truly terrifying outcome is that it works after changing nothing. Sometimes bugs are the most fun to squash.
Fun thought experiment, but I don’t think one can know without it truly on the table. I like to think I would not at all, but my responsibilities to loved ones may force me to in some situation.