101–110 of 742 posts
If you want to destroy open source completely, the more models the better. Microsoft's co-opting and infiltration of OSS projects will serve as a textbook example of eliminating competition in MBA programs. And people still support it by uploading to GitHub.
A case where "cut" is its own antonym, and its unclear which sense is meant from the headline alone.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060920230602/https://www.csub....
By way of "Why do we 'cut' a deal?" https://english.stackexchange.com/q/284233
---
"Cuts " ... leads to the initial parsing of "cuts all ties with" or similar "severs relationship with".
When with additional modifiers between "cuts" and "deal" the "cuts deal with" becomes harder to recognize as the "forms a deal with" meaning of the phase.
Anthropic’s article: https://www.anthropic.com/news/github-copilot GitHub’s article: https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/bringing-deve... Google Cloud’s article: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/g... Weird that it wasn’t published on the official Gemini news site here: https://blog.google/products/gemini/ Edit: GitHub Copilot is now also available in Xcode: https://github.blog/cha…
The reason here is Microsoft is trying to make copilot a platform. This is the essential step to moving all the power from OpenAI to Microsoft. It would grant Microsoft leverage over all providers since the customers would depend on Microsoft and not OpenAI or Google or Anthropic. Classic platform business evolution at play here.
One of the reasons that comes to my mind is - it could have been problematic look for only Microsoft (Copilot) to have access to GitHub for training AI models - à la monopolizing a data treasure trove. With anti-competitive legislation catching up to Google to open up its Play Store, this could have been one of key reasons why this deal came about.
Copilot can choke on my AGPL code on GitHub, that was used for training their proprietary models. I'm still salty about this, sadly looks like the world has largely moved on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was the point. They are laundering IP. It's the long way around the GPL, allowing then to steal.
How many OSS repositories do I personally have to read through for my own code to be considered stolen property? That line of thought would get thrown out of court faster than an AI would generate it.
One of the reasons that comes to my mind is - it could have been problematic look for only Microsoft (Copilot) to have access to GitHub for training AI models - à la monopolizing a data treasure trove. With anti-competitive legislation catching up to Google to open up its Play Store, this could have been one of key reasons why this deal came about.
Copilot can choke on my AGPL code on GitHub, that was used for training their proprietary models. I'm still salty about this, sadly looks like the world has largely moved on.
OpenAI has some very serious competition now. When you combine that with the recent destabilizing saga they went through along with commoditization of models with services like OpenRouter.ai, I'm not sure their future is as bright as their recent valuation indicates.
History has shown being first to market isn't all it's cut out to be. You spend more, it's more difficult creating the trail others will follow, you end up with a tech stack that was built before tools and patterns stabilized and you've created a giant super highway for a fast-follower. Anyone remember MapQuest, AltaVista or Hotmail? OpenAI has some very serious competition now. When you combine that with the recent…
What is this, if not first mover advantage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Claude consistently impresses me. A commenter on another thread mentioned it but it’s very similar to how search felt in the early 2000s. I ask it a question and get my answer. Sometimes it’s a little (or a lot) wrong or outdated, but at least I get something to tinker with.
Conversely I feel that the experience of searching has been degraded by a lot since 2016/17. My these is that, at this time, online spam increased by an order of magnitude
Google used to prioritise big comprehensive articles on subjects for desktop users but mobile users just wanted quick answers, so that's what google prioritised as they became the biggest users.
But also, per your point, I think those smaller simpler less comprehensive posts are easier to fake/spam than the larger more compreshensible posts that came before.