381–390 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how common this understanding of the terms is, but to me, those terms don't seem conflicting.
But they are different terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a 1958 Plymouth Fury named Christine. You don't anthropomorphize your killer car, the killer car is just out for blood - you rebuild it and it kills your friends and family, the end. You don't think 'oh, Christine hates me' - Christine doesn't give a * about you, Christine can't hate you. Don't anth…
Wrong movie
The owner of the car that rebuilds it so it can kill is the equivalent of the people that prop-up Oracle and companies like them.
Maximum Overdrive has a mystic comet that happens to pass by and temporally creates the destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that’s not what they are saying. They’re saying that the code generated by a human with help from an LLM may potentially be. This is what I hope we are going to arrive at, eventually.
How could you establish what parts of the code was produced by an LLM vs updated by a human afterwards? The LLM will output different results over time as the models get updated. Are we heading towards needing to retain a full prompt history that can be replayed against a specific LLM model version to prove what the output was for copyright purposes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when two salesmen both take the guy out for golf? Someone's getting stiffed, right? And it happens with government employees all the time, just a bit differently. The lobbyist is a member at Shinnecock Hills or some other private, prestigious golf course that costs $100,000+ to join. Then he invites the senator out, the "guest fee" is a nominal amount like $120, which he happily pays to play a round on a…
Yes, corruption happens every day. So do rape and murder and theft, and so many other problems. Why should I be so accepting of any of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not when you stop kidding yourself : using AI has nothing to do to improve the quality of the code. It is a vanity status, at this point.
Using AI is vanity? I've never heard that before. Why is that? Refusing to use AI honestly seems more like vanity to me. Like "no machine could ever do what I do". That said I would not necessarily accuse people who don't want to use AI of vanity - there are good reasons not to want to use it - but if someone else did it I'd find it easier to understand.
Like Allbirds, a shoes company that somehow now does AI.
Oracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the l…
What I don't understand is why anyone with half a brain would even venture to touch Oracle with a ten foot pole given that they've had this reputation for at least the last 25 years. Why, people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have misunderstood an is/ought distinction. You may hold the (fairly extreme, as far as copyright goes) position that surveillance footage should be subject to copyright, but it's well established that it's not. Who owns the camera is irrelevant. At least in the US; I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that hold otherwise. This is why Wikipedia articles on world events in the past few decades are full of st…
Do you have a source for raw surveillance footage not being subject to copyright? I'd not heard of this, and a web search didn't turn up anything.
The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
Oracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the l…
Makes sense, but they take an anti-AI stand, which I find good no matter for which reason they do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, corruption happens every day. So do rape and murder and theft, and so many other problems. Why should I be so accepting of any of them?
Because a huge billion dollar company's selection of ERP software isn't ruining someone's life, like a rape, murder or theft.