So, the judge says:
In cases involving uses like Meta’s, it seems like the plaintiffs will often win, at least where those cases have better-developed records on the market effects of the defendant’s use.
And what is that supposed to ever look like? Do authors need a better developed record of effects of movies on book sales, to get paid for movie adaptations, too?
Its not about moats, it's about open source community (whose code had been trained on) coming out with pitchforks. It has nothing to do with moats.
You are way overselling coding agents.
Re-creating some open source project with a similar function is literally the only way a coding agent can pretend to be a programmer.
I tried latest models for code and they are in fact capable of shitting out a thousand lines of working code at a time, which obviously can only be obtained via plagiarism since they are also incapable of writing the most trivial code for a novel situation. And the neat thing about plagiarism is that once you start you can keep going since there's more of compatible code where it came from.
Pre-LLM, I had to sit through one or two annual videos to the sense of “dont cut and paste from open source, better yet don’t even look at GPLd code you arent working on” and had to do a click test with questions like “is it ok if you rename all the variables yes no”. Ohh and I had to run a scanning tool as part of the release process.
I don’t think its the FSD they would worry about, but GPL especially v3. Nobody gives a shit if it steals some leetcode snippet, or cuts and pastes some calls to a stupid API.
But if you have a “coding agent” just replicating GPL code wholesale, thousands and thousands of lines, it would be very obvious. And not all companies ship shitcode. Apple is a premium product and ages old patched CVEs from open source cropping up in there wouldn’t be exactly premium.
That is not equivalent, though; other solutions to "can not be left unattended" exist; just ask Kristi Noem.
There is an implicit claim in the red button that it was worth including.
It is like Google’s AI overviews. There can not be a sufficient disclaimer because the overview being on the top of Google search implies a level of usefulness which it does not meet, not even in the “evil plan to make more money briefly” way.
Edit: my analogy to AI disclaimers is using “this device uses nuclei known to the state of California to…” in place of “drop and run”.
Jesus Christ on a stick, thats some trice cursed shit.
Maybe susceptibility runs in families, culturally. Religion does, for one thing.
but often the video isn’t clear or fine quality enough
Wouldn't it be great if 100x the effort that didn't go into making the video clear or fine quality enough, instead didn't go into making relevant flying, see-through overlay decals?
Ultimately the reason it looks cool is that you're comparing a situation of little effort being put into repair related documentation, to some movie scenario where 20 person-hours were spent making a 20-second repair fragment whereby 1 step of a repair is done.
I'm not sure it's actually being used, beyond C suite wanting something cool to happen and pretending it did happen.
Using tools from physics to create something that is popular but unrelated to physics is enough for the nobel prize in physics?
If only, it's not even that! Neither Boltzmann machines nor Hopfield networks led to anything used in the modern spam and deepfake generating AI, nor in image recognition AI, or the like. This is the kind of stuff that struggles to get above 60% accuracy on MNIST (hand written digits).
Hinton went on to do some different stuff based on backpropagation and gradient descent, on newer computers than those who came up with it long before him, and so he got Turing Award for that, and it's a wee bit controversial because of the whole "people doing it before, but on worse computers, and so they didn't get any award" thing, but at least it is for work that is on the path leading to modern AI and not for work that is part of the vast list of things that just didn't work and it's extremely hard to explain why you would even think they would work in the first place.
Then next year Hopfield and Hinton go back to Sweden, don't tell king of Sweden anything, king of Sweden still gives them the Nobel Prize! King of Sweden now has conditioned reflex!
Well I'll be damned, they are trying to get it to work as if it had internal state, by augmenting their training dataset with some auto-generated crap. Of course, if machine learning wasn't shit at recurrence they wouldn't be using transformer architecture, so it doesn't work.
I got the following from chatgpt:
Janet’s ducks lay 3 eggs per day. Each day, she transports one duck and all the eggs to the other side of the river using a boat that can hold her and one other item (either a duck or an egg). How does she do that? ChatGPT
Janet can transport the ducks and eggs across the river using the following strategy:
Day 1 (Duck A, Duck B, Duck C on side A; Egg 1, Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A):
Janet takes Duck A across the river.
Day 2 (Duck B, Duck C on side A; Egg 1, Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A):
Janet takes Egg 1 across the river.
Day 3 (Duck B, Duck C on side A; Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A on side B):
Janet takes Duck A back to side A.
Day 4 (Duck C on side A; Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A on side A; Egg 1 on side B):
Janet takes Duck B across the river.
Day 5 (Duck C on side A; Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A on side A; Egg 1, Duck B on side B):
Janet takes Egg 1 back to side A.
Day 6 (Duck C on side A; Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A, Egg 1 on side A; Duck B on side B):
Janet takes Duck A across the river again.
Day 7 (Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A, Egg 1 on side A; Duck B on side B; Duck C on side A):
Janet takes Duck C across the river.
Day 8 (Egg 2, Egg 3 on side A; Duck A, Egg 1, Duck C on side A; Duck B on side B):
Janet takes Egg 2 across the river.
Day 9 (Egg 3 on side A; Duck A, Egg 1, Duck C on side A; Duck B on side B; Egg 2 on side B):
Janet takes Duck A back to side A.
Day 10 (Egg 3 on side A; Duck C on side A; Duck A on side A; Duck B, Egg 1, Egg 2 on side B):
Janet takes Duck B across the river.
Day 11 (Egg 3 on side A; Duck C on side A; Duck A, Duck B on side A; Egg 1, Egg 2 on side B):
Janet takes Egg 1 back to side A.
Day 12 (Egg 3 on side A; Duck C on side A; Duck A, Egg 1, Duck B on side A; Egg 2 on side B):
Janet takes Duck A across the river again.
Day 13 (Duck C on side A; Duck A, Egg 1, Duck B on side A; Egg 2 on side B; Egg 3 on side B):
Janet takes Duck C across the river.
By following this sequence, Janet successfully transports all 3 ducks and all 3 eggs across the river in 13 trips. Each trip involves either transporting one duck or one egg, adhering to the constraint that Janet can only carry one item (duck or egg) with her in the boat.
That philosophy always ends in stepping into dogshit to try to boost stock prices.