If you look at the viewpoint of a CEO, you'll see that they would be chomping at the bit to get rid of as many high paying technical or administrative roles as they can; it's not like that extra money is going to flow down the chain.
Now, if there were a threat of LLMs replacing a management position, that would be a different story.
Edit: Apparently my reading comprehension is what needs calibrating. Turns out I agree! My bad.
It's interesting you have this opinion; I figured this would be the biggest draw for corporations-- they're no longer beholden to some third party for their media presence-- it's all hosted and controlled by themselves;.
In email terms, it's the difference between tide@gmail.com and tide@tide.com.
Edit: I don't have any idea why I went with tide, so if you find yourself wondering why I did that, get in line. haha
When I was a kid everyone had such a high opinion of them
That depends on when you grew up. It seems from this data that the golden age of being a SCOTUS judge just was the late 80s, but any other time in recent history (prior or subsequently) the SCOTUS struggled to get even half the country to approve of them.
I think some confusion has happened since I made my last comment. I was under the impression that Education != indoctrination was saying that DeSantis wasn't going after educators, but instead, getting rid of "indoctrination".
I wholeheartedly agree that the major difference is that education teaches to question your world, and indoctrination tells you to shut up and get in line. What DeSantis is getting rid of is education, and making room for indoctrination.
I personally might have enjoyed it more if it hadn't been (seemingly) shoehorned into the Star Trek universe. I understand it's not a very subjective metric, but Discovery just didn't feel like Star Trek.
It comes across as if someone producer got pitched a sci-fi series with the plot of Discovery and thought, "This is great! It would be even better if we slapped Star Trek all over it!"
Was the show doing well at all? I appreciate that I might just be in my own little bubble, but I don't know a single person that loves this show. Some people like it, but it's always a milquetoast endorsement, like "It's not bad" or "It seems like a good scifi series but it feels like Star Trek fan fiction", etc.
I'm surprised they didn't at least strongly suspect it was the end.
Especially when compared to Strange New Worlds, which is an, imo, amazing Star Trek series.
If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
If conservatives become convinced that an education makes people less conservative, then they will not gaze inward to wonder why that might be, but instead reject education.
Sorry about the late reply-- I try my best to stay mostly disconnected from the internet on the weekends.
Literally all intellectual property law concerns how intellectual property may or may not be used and licensed.
True, but no IP law gives the IP holder the power you're trying to give them. That is what I'm saying. It would need the law to be changed. There is no aspect of IP law that says that you aren't allowed to use the text to train anyone, let alone a LLM.
The training data is what gives the LLM value in the problematic situations so, it is very clear that the material is a key component in the business plan and commercial use.
This does not matter. If I read a book on Six Sigma business practices and then use that knowledge to better structure my business to increase my profits, I don't owe the author of the book anything from that. You're, again, trying very hard to give away your own rights in order to stick it to LLMs. I'm positive IP rights holder would love this new right you want to give them. Perhaps reconsider the implications, though. Simply making money off of the information found in a book does not give the author rights to that money.
Let me ask you this. If you have a epub of a book on your computer and you select it and press Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V-- have you violated copyright laws? You've made a copy, after all.
I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven't been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that "the zygote hasn't been born yet" is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.
As I've said, many, many, many times already, we already have a system in place to say that two people both have rights, but in some instances, one of those person's rights take precedence over another person's rights-- like in cases of killing in self-defense.
And we do give rights to animals. Just not the same we give to humans.
You know rights are just something humans made up, right?
Data is encoded into mathematical functions in neural network nodes but, it is still encoded data in the same way that an MP3 and WAV of a song are both still the song; the neural network is the medium.
It's not plagiarism by any definition of the word that makes sense; while the analogy may not be literal, it is perfectly analogous to suggest that learning new words from a Harry Potter book means that any book you write going forward is plagiarizing JK Rowling; the training data helps map the words in the model-- it's never used as a blueprint when predicting what word comes next in any given scenario. It's even farther away from copyright infringement-- there is no limited right granted that allows a IP holder to say how that IP can be processed. That's just not a thing. You'd have just as much leg to stand on if you suggested that Stephen King had the right to prevent people from reading his books in a room with green walls. You can't just make up new rights. Trademark law is totally insane. I don't know why you even mention it. It doesn't even have the same goals as the others.
as a software engineer
I am not so sure that this specific role is in any way secure, myself. You may come to the same conclusion after reading that link I provided-- pay attention to how rapidly the LLMs are growing in complexity. I do not wish for anyone to lose their financial security, even a stranger like you, but I can't help but look at the available information and come to that conclusion.
Your cynicism isn't properly calibrated.
If you look at the viewpoint of a CEO, you'll see that they would be chomping at the bit to get rid of as many high paying technical or administrative roles as they can; it's not like that extra money is going to flow down the chain.
Now, if there were a threat of LLMs replacing a management position, that would be a different story.
Edit: Apparently my reading comprehension is what needs calibrating. Turns out I agree! My bad.