20k

7 ms·

61.
by 20k 2mo ago
Most developers by any metric haven't hopped onto the full agentic AI bandwagon. People who want to stop understanding code will indeed largely lose their technical skills, but they're a minority of developers. Its one of the reas
62.
by 20k 2mo ago
This doesn't appear to relate to the conversation at all, because we aren't talking about generating entire products. Is this just generic AI advertising?
63.
by 20k 2mo ago
>This document imposes no requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined behavior That's saying that programs that exhibit undefined behaviour are not governed by the C++ spec. For a program to be a valid, spec gove
64.
by 20k 2mo ago
Clang/LLVM at least treats this as UB, not as implementation defined behaviour however according to an LLVM dev
65.
by 20k 2mo ago
Its incredibly hard to get changes like this into the standard, because there's a core contingent of people who seem to feel that UB is part of C++'s identity, and then there's very vague hand waving about performance. There
66.
by 20k 2mo ago
Clang is a target for the GSL though. How can MSVC's special powers prevent this from being exploitable UB in Clang/LLVM? This code boils down to static_cast<int>(some_double); so nothing fancy is going on here
67.
by 20k 2mo ago
Yeah Herb's 100% wrong here. Its common when people are downplaying the memory safety issues with C++ that they say things like this, but its completely incorrect. All invoked UB is potentially equally serious, and this is exploitable
68.
by 20k 2mo ago
I suspect the people advocating for this don't actually do this, its one of those things that you say because it sounds modern and up to date, and makes for a good sounding blogpost. The actual reality of any of what they're talki
69.
by 20k 2mo ago
Matrix still doesn't have a client with built in push to talk as far as I'm aware. The relevant issue on the Element github has been sat there for 8 years now It does not seem like a serious project, at least not one being develop
70.
by 20k 2mo ago
I feel like a lot of people literally do not understand what the purpose of software engineering is. It isn't to write code
71.
by 20k 2mo ago
Its not specifically established but its the only compatible ruling that the law can really make here. There is a lot of very similar precedence, there was a legaleagle on this which went through the likely legal outcome
72.
by 20k 2mo ago
Song lyrics have the strongest legal precedent is why, there was a recent court case requiring them to be taken out of the training data of an AI model
73.
by 20k 2mo ago
This has been a security vulnerability since day 1 with these models, yet collectively the people who use them just simply don't seem to care about the security implications. Its especially problematic given that people let AI agents h
74.
by 20k 2mo ago
For me there's two separate problems: 1. The plagiarism aspect, and that most of the training data was used without permission 2. I haven't found it terribly useful in my personal work, as the data it was trained on was heavily po
75.
by 20k 2mo ago
I've seen: 1. AI models frequently output large chunks of code which are plagiarised. In one specific case it was code for walking the stack, that was a clear mix of two original sources that I was able to find with changed variable na
76.
by 20k 2mo ago
Did... you read any of these? Fair use is a defence against copyright infringement. Ie you actively say that you *have* committed copyright infringement, but you're allowed to do it under fair use doctrine to train the model. That says
77.
by 20k 2mo ago
Under the law, machines are not able to create copyright, and basic human involvement is not enough to change this. Eg if you click a button saying "go", that won't create copyrightable content You can use all the ideas you
78.
by 20k 2mo ago
I mean, its theoretically possible that a court might rule that if an LLM outputs an exact or lightly modified piece of copyrighted work, that it won't be copyright encumbered. We'll end up in a situation where copyright doesn&#x2
79.
by 20k 2mo ago
Ok, but courts haven't made those rulings yet so good luck with that
80.
by 20k 2mo ago
You reproducing something does not have the same legal status as a tool reproducing something, as you are a human >Says what court of law? If you turn a png into a jpeg, and distribute it, that's copyright infringement. There isn&#x
81.
by 20k 2mo ago
Courts have ordered AI models to remove song lyrics from their training data, they most definitely do not agree with you
82.
by 20k 2mo ago
AI has the capacity to exactly reproduce its training data, just because something is a transformed representation does not mean that it isn't copying it in some fashion. The JPEG format 'just' counts the frequencies in an 8x
83.
by 20k 2mo ago
AI code generation often outputs exact copies of code that exists in the wild. I've seen it output chunks from research papers unprompted as well, its a big problem, or blending two papers together in a salad AI works also clearly ar
84.
by 20k 2mo ago
AI reproduces copyrighted work exactly in many cases, so it clearly infringes copyright in this sense The output of it is also a derivative work, and derivative works also infringe copyright. Its only not a problem if you ignore copyright e
85.
by 20k 3mo ago
I'm saying that for black hole visualisation, the approach you're using is not necessarily standard in comparable papers. It would not be considered a physically accurate rendering no. People go to great pains to ensure that they&
86.
by 20k 3mo ago
They used a greyscale -> colour mapping, it wasn't really red/yellow. It was just for vibes. Its one of my minor pet peeves about the EHT visualisations, but given that its visualisations for effect its relatively fine. I'
87.
by 20k 3mo ago
So in your opinion, the primary thing that makes this a physically accurate simulation is that you've calculated the bending of light rays, and the structure, colouration and brightness of the accretion disk doesn't matter at all?
88.
by 20k 3mo ago
Man, truly absolutely gross to see this, this is some incredibly unethical engineering here. This is literally why people hate AI slop. Its not surprising to me that you didn't want to even write the post yourself >It cost me 53 mer
89.
by 20k 3mo ago
I've done this as have many other people, its absolutely possible and there are good sims floating around. The OPs simulation is just presenting itself as more than what it is
90.
by 20k 3mo ago
They're blue, in general black hole accretion disks are very hot, and anything past a certain temperature looks pale blue as follows: https://20k.github.io/assets/kerraccrete.PNG This is a colour and relative brig

More ›