Why does the reportimg say she "abandoned" her car at the beach? She was at the beach when she was located. People usually do not take their cars with them once they arrive at their destination. To get out and walk is not abandoning the car.
Readit NewsAll this talk about energy independence and not a word on where are the solar cells, batteries and wind turbines made. If your grid is standing on components with short life time and which you can't manufacture at scale, you are not independent. You have just traded one dependence for another.
Sorry, what is the previous dependency?
If you're talking about longevity of solar or wind turbines, given that their lifespan is measured in tens of years, it does give you some ability to respond to some external group cutting your supply off. It's not remotely the same as oil/gas dependency.
zizee commented on Ask HN: Are startups still using Ruby on Rails to start new products/projects? · Posted by u/zizee
zizee commented on Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors nytimes.com/2025/09/05/te... · Posted by u/acomjean
To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training.
It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data.
Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine.
Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.
Has it been decided that training models is fair use? Has it been decided in all jurisdictions?
If the code will be reviewed from the LLM of the future, then why does it matter? Let it review a trillion lines of code for a simple calculator app.
I think that we devs are now very skeptical because we are the ones that have to fix the sh that llms spit out. But likely we will be taken out of the loop completely.
The vast majority of people cannot do the structured thinking to model the real world in a fashion that a computer can understand. That is a key attribute of a good dev. If someone can do this, and describe it well enough to a LLM, they are a dev. It's not devs that will be taken out of the loop, unless you define a dev as someone who is just a translator between human language and machine code.
zizee commented on Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement cnbc.com/2025/07/18/meta-... · Posted by u/rntn
> that can reliably reproduce thousands/millions of copyrighted works, you shouldn't be distributibg it. If it were just regular software that had that capability, would it be allowed?
LLMs are hardly reliable ways to reproduce copyrighted works. The closest examples usually involve prompting the LLM with a significant portion of the copyrighted work and then seeing it can predict a number of tokens that follow. It’s a big stretch to say that they’re reliably reproducing copyrighted works any more than, say, a Google search producing a short excerpt of a document in the search results or a blog writer quoting a section of a book.
It’s also interesting to see the sudden anti-LLM takes that twist themselves into arguing against tools or platforms that might reproduce some copyrighted content. By this argument, should BitTorrent also be banned? If someone posts a section of copyrighted content to Hacker News as a comment, should YCombinator be held responsible?
Then they should easily fall within the regulation section posted earlier.
If you cannot see the difference between BitTorrent and Ai models, then it's probably not worth engaging with you.
But Ai model have been shown to reproduce the training data
https://gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-ai-copyright-stable-di...
zizee commented on Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement cnbc.com/2025/07/18/meta-... · Posted by u/rntn
Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.
One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].
> GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.
[1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...
It doesn't seem unreasonable. If you train a model that can reliably reproduce thousands/millions of copyrighted works, you shouldn't be distributibg it. If it were just regular software that had that capability, would it be allowed? Just because it's a fancy Ai model it is ok?
zizee commented on Meta says it won't sign Europe AI agreement cnbc.com/2025/07/18/meta-... · Posted by u/rntn
A good example of how this can end up with negative outcomes is the cookie directive, which is how we ended up with cookie consent popovers on every website that does absolutely nothing to prevent tracking and has only amounted to making lives more frustrating in the EU and abroad.
It was a decade too late and written by people who were incredibly out of touch with the actual problem. The GDPR is a bit better, but it's still a far bigger nuisance for regular European citizens than the companies that still largely unhindered track and profile the same.
So because sometimes a regulation misses the mark, governments should not try to regulate?
The economic cases for manned moon or Mars programs look really iffy these days. The US has poured tens of $billions down the SLS rat hole, with very little to show for it. And Wienersmith's A City on Mars is a pretty damning dissection of the whole concept of Martian colonies.
It's pretty difficult to predict what spinoffs would come from attempting to put a colony on Mars. I would imagine to succeed we would need to solve a lot of challenges with human biology, genetic engineering, automation, and many novel engineering solutions.
But economics is not the only reason to do things, and I bet you don't expect everything humans do to have a purely economic rational.