I’m afraid LLMs are making copyrights obsolete and unenforceable. If an author uses DeepSeek to write a book, piece of music, application, or patent did they break copyright? Is the new work protected if this is disclosed?
As per your second question the copyright office came out this week with the following guidance:
The new guidelines say that AI prompts currently don’t offer enough control to “make users of an AI system the authors of the output.”(AI systems themselves can’t hold copyrights.) That stands true whether the prompt is extremely simple or involves long strings of text and multiple iterations. “No matter how many times a prompt is revised and resubmitted, the final output reflects the user’s acceptance of the AI system’s interpretation, rather than authorship of the expression it contains,”
They are suppose to come out with guidance regarding the first question in a month or so.
While this pattern shows the inconsistency between how humans and AI are treated, there have been many examples over history where the ability to do at an increased scale something that was already familiar, results in the law being changed.
Shining a torch at a plane is usually fine, shining a laser at them usually is a crime.
Myself, every time this topic comes up, I point to the fact that the philosophy of mind has 40 different definitions of "consciousness" which makes it really hard for any two people to even be sure they're arguing about the same thing when they argue if any given AI does or doesn't have it.
(Also: They can be "persons" legally without being humans, cf. corporate personhood; and they can have rights independently of either personhood or humanity, cf. animal welfare).
I knew about that case (though I don't know the specifics of how sophisticated the LaMDA model was at the time, I don't know if it ever was available online so I could try it). AFAICT Blake Lemoine was not concerned with copyright at all, he just genuinely believed the model was sentient.
What I meant ("none" is obviously a hyperbole, though not by much) is that people argue that "AI" (they always use this term rather than the more descriptive ML or LLM or generative models) is somehow special and either that the mixing of input material is sufficient to defeat copyright or that it somehow magically doesn't apply for reasons they either cannot describe or which include the word "intelligence".
I am writing a master's thesis and notice somebody has written one containing a chapter than I also need to write. I copy paste the chapter but replace every word with a synonym. Did I break copyright? Did I commit plagiarism?
There are 2 separate metrics - obviousness (=provability) and reality.
Courts operate on provability (and for good reasons).
However, reality is I have used someone else's work and pretended it's my own. Now, ironically, there are cases where the act of masking it can be more time consuming than writing it from scratch. That is still plagiarism, although it might not be provable.
I don't think it's possible to get away from that, we are both "plagiarizing" something else in a way just by writing these responses, because there are no new ideas, everything is a copy of something else, the only question is by how much, and can you tell. Obviously this goes down a philosophical rabbit hole... but I think the "reality" you describe is just as subjective as obviousness.
So, first, this is factually wrong, there are obviously new ideas, often rediscovered independently.
Second, seeing things in black and white is a fallacy. The amount obviously matters and what also matters is the _human_ work on top of the original work. LLMs are fundamentally different, human time (and work) has value, LLM time does not (it costs money to run but that is both different and inconsequential in comparison).
Third, you seem to forget that you can base academic work on that of other people, as long as you give proper credit. Just like are can base your code on that of other people, as long as you follow their code's license.
I think another mistake is people thinking metaverse = VR. Metaverse is a catch all term for the post-smartphone internet. Things like the RayBan glasses, Orion, that EMG wristband they showed at connect, etc. are all part of that.
I'd argue that there is 0 evidence so far that there will be a "post-smartphone internet", at least in the near/mid term.
Sure, those wearables may find niche use cases, but Zuckerberg definitely believed that the "Metaverse" (god I hate that term) would be the Next Big Computing Platform, as significant as the switch from desktops and laptops to smartphones. That has certainly not happened, and lots of people, myself included, still feel that all of these other devices are at best a "oh, that's cool" for a bit before ending up in a drawer somewhere, or at worst an undesired annoyance.
Agreed, but unrelated to if Meta/Zuck are right or successful, thinking of the metaverse as just a VR play is wrong and also underestimates the scope of the project.
The stock dropping below $90 coupled with all the blatantly untrue “no one uses meta anymore” posts on reddit seemed to be sheer stupidity tbh. They were reporting earnings and user growth at the time. It’s now >$570, a similar rise to Nvidia.
It should be a lesson in doing the opposite to /r/stocks sentiment. (They also had tons of posts on why shorting nvidia would be a great idea a year ago).
Basically do the opposite to the most uneducated group of investors you can find and you have a good chance at making money off their bad trades. Don’t try to inverse the large firms with huge amount of research. Just inverse reddit for easy money.
They're spending more on VR in 2024 than 2023. As much as it's laughed at, I believe VR/AR will be a big platform, it's still growing healthily. And it's pretty awesome, go try the Quest 3. Most importantly for Meta, they completely own VR at this point. There's so much hardware and software that needs to be developed in order to compete that I doubt anyone can do it at this point. Apple tried, but besides the high price the software is just not mature enough, it takes many years to develop all the necessary parts.
"Even if all the governments of the world were to understand the "threat" and be in deadly fear of it, progress toward the goal would continue. In fact, the competitive advantage of every advance in automation is so compelling that passing laws, or having customs, that forbid such things merely assures that someone else will get them first."
Intel looks severely undervalued compared to every other chipmaker… until you look at how completely behind they are… and then you realize that their value is mostly geopolitical. I can make a case for investing in them based on their relationship with US gov alone but even then it looks like it will be years before Intel has chips that can compete.
If they have any luck as a foundry service, it might end up being for the better that their consumer chip business dries up. Why buy ARM licenses when you can make ARM licensees pay you instead?
When a new island is formed, usually it is first inhabited by algae and moss. As the ecosystem matures, plants, birds, insects, and all sorts of organisms populate it. You can still usually find the early algae and moss. They are just harder to spot due to the thriving and abundant ecosystem.
I think that this analogy is really fitting. The old internet was way less organized, which means that it was less useful, but it also gave this fantastic sense of exploring something new. It was highly personal, the lack of common standards meant that everyone had to reinvent the wheel in their own way. Its dangers were more direct and "in your face". Yes, you could stumble upon a pedofile on an open forum and ordering a taxi online was wrong on so many levels, but there was no systematic explotation of human weaknesses like we have nowadays. The phrase "global village" captures the experience really well, as opposed to the megacity we have now.
I think it's a curse of progress. Once you get the taste of a highly developed, efficiently functioning society you can't go back and live in a cave again. At the same time you can't deny that living in a cave has its charm.
You were young and not working. The world was full of new frontiers and possibilities.
Young people today are on Minecraft, Roblox, VRchat, Discord, and YouTube. That's their frontier internet, and they probably feel the same way about it as you do.
A Geocities website, phpBB or EZBoard, webring, Xanga, and AIM/IRC has a similar analogues today. The pieces just have different names and shapes.
I get this argument from a lot of people but it is not true. There was a much higher spirit of sharing and just cool shit back in the day. Now everyone is trying to make a buck, and shit is slow, like Slack.
There still is amongst the users on Discord, e.g. in some gamedev Discords, etc. - it's even easier to do things together ad-hoc with screen sharing built-in.
It really is just that we're old now so we don't interact with them.
Although I agree the grindset culture has harmed Internet culture.
I'm in my 30s and I am interact a lot with discord. I agree gamedev is one last large scale space where interesting things happen.
But overall people are just trying to optimize total compensation and bend over backwards to get into FAANG. Imagine telling us to get into IBM back in the day.
So things have definitely changed. The punk spirit has also been lost. Normies have arrived. It's good for the normies, but we won't get a Napster again.
That’s not the point. Modern crap doesn’t hold a candle to what we had back then.
And no, this is not the rambling of getting-older-man.
Rampant corporate control, completely sanitized internet by default, “social” networks that literally give kids https://cwi.pressbooks.pub/urj/chapter/2022-first-place-inst... mental disorders, political agenda pushed from every hole, disinformation campaigns, bots to the point where you don’t even know if you’re talking to a real person. Internet became a weapon.
Back then we an intranet within
local ISP (additionally to internet access) that had a sense of community, local services, file sharing, chats, meetups which generally self moderated themselves and everyone knew each other. What do you have now? Proprietary discord chat rooms filled with degeneracy? Good luck going through that.
I think there is great stuff on Discord and people do the same things they did then and enjoy similar tomfoolery.. they just don’t own it and are monetized, and don’t have viable alternatives (none of which was true back then).
I think the big reason why social media is toxic is because going online is no longer a choice and it follows you around. Some decisions by social media providers aren’t helping, but mobile is more guilty than social itself.
It's still like that. There's a lot of weird things you're gonna find on the tail end of Github repositories, or Pastebin uploads, Imgur, or YouTube... it's just hard to find unless you crawl the whole thing or otherwise come into the possession of the underlying database (as this person did).
It might be somewhere between the two. The internet was messier back in the day. It didn’t feel as corporate and there was a strong spirit of sharing cool things because cool things are fun. Nowadays, it seems like everyone is just trying to get paid. And that’s fine because getting paid is fun too, but the spirit has changed.
On the other hand, my eight year old is a big fan of a YouTube channel called Pilot Debrief. We just watched a documentary on the Gimli Glider and when we talked about it after, it was apparent that she has learned a tremendous amount about flying from that channel.
So for my kid, that spirit of sharing cool things because cool things are fun is still going strong. And when I experience her experiencing things like that, I’m reminded that that spirit is still out there but I’m just old.
Stocks of companies that develop extremely niche and technical things is a tiny sliver of the stock market that I actually think communities like HN would be better at valuing than the market.
Technology stocks are the only ones I personally day trade for that reason. Example: at the beginning of a pandemic lockdowns, any HN user could have anticipated increased internet usage and buy Cloudflare/Fastly stock and made a lot of money before the rest of the market realized that CDN companies will significantly benefit from that specific macro event.
I'm not convinced the market (or market analysts) have a deep understanding of Nividia's long-term advantage. If they did, we would have seen a much slower and steadier valuation increase rather than the meteoric rise. Meteoric stock price rise/fall = the market is having trouble valuing the stock.
In other words, stock prices don't add much to the conversation.
Most likely by ground teams operating the spacecraft remotely. There isn’t much for humans to do in a spacecraft that can’t be done by automation, unless something goes wrong.
Most of them are sequenced. Around 6:10 the video goes through a series of buttons, most of which are called "Backup switch to do X" because when everything goes as planned, no button push is needed to perform the action.
