deathmetal27 @ deathmetal27 @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

248

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agreed, but can we focus on the problem?

Good thing that that's not my boss. I'm actually already planning to move to 25.

What happened in the 70s?

Riddick

I tried to make this logo from scratch in Blender for a wallpaper and kinda couldn't get the shape right because the angle of the actual logo is a bit weird.

https://www.pling.com/p/1788876

Good to know that I can use this official model.

Oh well. I'm too used to the "/s" for recognising sarcasm.

Genuine? Almost all his arguments are strawman and he contradicts himself constantly.

One way I could see this being enforced is by mandating that AI models not respond to questions that could result in speaking about a copyrighted work. Similar to how mainstream models don't speak about vulgar or controversial topics.

But yeah, realistically, it's unlikely that any judge would rule in that favour.

Alsup? Is this the same judge who also presided over Oracle v. Google over the use of Java in Android? That guy really does his homework over cases he presides on, he learned how to code to see if APIs are copyrightable.

As for the ruling, I'm not in favour of AI training on copyrighted material, but I can see where the judgement is coming from. I think it's a matter of what's really copyrightable: the actual text or images or the abstract knowledge in the material. In other words, if you were to read a book and then write a summary of a section of it in your own words or orally described what you learned from the book to someone else, does that mean copyright infringement? Or if you watch a movie and then describe your favourite scenes to your friends?

Perhaps a case could be made that AI training on copyrighted materials is not the same as humans consuming the copyrighted material and therefore it should have a different provision in copyright law. I'm no lawyer, but I'd assume that current copyright law works on the basis that humans do not generally have perfect recall of the copyrighted material they consume. But then again a counter argument could be that neither does the AI due to its tendency to hallucinate sometimes. However, it still has superior recall compared to humans and perhaps could be the grounds for amending copyright law about AI training?

Not built, learned.

Xenia says hi.

Systemdeez nuts

Same thing. You'd have to boot into windows at some point.

This should not happen unless you booted into windows and ran an update.

Unfortunately imgflip prints text in all caps only.

I've been using namecheap. But not sure where they're based.

American though.

I think I need to clear a common misconception people seem to have here: Oracle has very little to do with Java.

At most, Oracle has the following connection to Java:

• Own the trademark
• Have a build of the JDK/JRE with commercial support.

However, Java as a language's baseline comes from OpenJDK, an open source (GPL 2.0) community project which is upstream to several builds including Oracle's JVM. It follows a "bazaar" like development model similar to the Linux kernel where you can see their mailing lists and track what's being worked on. Anyone can contribute and the code is on Github: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk.

That being said, you don't even need to use Oracle's JDK (it sucks IMO) and use one of the community provided builds of OpenJDK. OpenJDK builds are provided by Eclipse, Amazon, Azul, Bellsoft and even Microsoft provides JDK/JRE builds. These are free of cost and have longer term support than Oracle's offering.

"Get outta there, it's gonna blow."

I like to think of AI like an advanced fighter jet. Jets these days basically fly themselves via their onboard computer. The human is just another input to the jet's computer. But the human makes the important decisions and steers the jet.

The jet does other heavy lifting stuff such as ensuring that the flight is stable, auto-pilots and engages lock on for enemy targets. When the pilot hears that there is a lock on they can choose to press one button and fire the missile.

In other words, AI is a tool. It can simplify a lot of the more stressful or repetitive aspects of software development but is not smart enough to make good decisions or to understand context.

Even if you were to get rid of programmers, who will then operate the AI? The product managers who are typically pure business people and don't fully understand how software development is done? That will be like a lawyer flying a F22 Raptor. Also who will make sure that the code that the AI spat out aligns with the expected requirements and is efficient? You'd have to be insane to push AI generated code to production without verification.