beej71

15 ms·

451.
by beej71 8mo ago
> But, it was so much better to do this than to try to synthesize that in my brain For some definitions of "better", that is. :(
452.
by beej71 8mo ago
Nor does it matter if code has no value. I do think what happens in this case is SCOTUS will ultimately rule that AI-built code is copyrightable while art is not. I'm sure there's some rationale thick enough for them.
453.
by beej71 8mo ago
It makes no sense to people who want to live in a globally-competitive democracy. But other people don't share that goal, and the moves make perfect sense in their context.
454.
by beej71 8mo ago
It's not just the war, obviously. This time the President has immunity levels that are unprecedented. And his cronies in Congress and SCOTUS don't seem inclined to rein him in on much.
455.
by beej71 8mo ago
I think these are are excellent points, but the complaint talks about significant performance and power issues.
456.
by beej71 8mo ago
It's also because we (generally) consider a blog to be human communication and we consider math and programs to be something else. If you're talking to someone on the phone and halfway through they identify themselves as a bot, su
457.
by beej71 8mo ago
I left them off because you already said them and it would be redundant. But now we know your answer to my question is "yes". We all get to choose whether or not we put party before country. Some people choose poorly.
458.
by beej71 8mo ago
> However, Amodei refused to budge on relinquishing final say over Claude usage. And that's 100% acceptable and legal. They have the right to do that. And DoW can then turn around and say "no deal". And that's 100% ac
459.
by beej71 8mo ago
You left Trump off the list, though. Deliberate?
460.
by beej71 8mo ago
You're not American so it might be hard to wrap your head around, but here the "sovereign" leadership is not the ultimate authority.
461.
by beej71 8mo ago
> Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional? Seems like legally the answer is "no". But it also seems like practically the answer is "definitely".
462.
by beej71 8mo ago
> If Anthropic doesn’t want the responsibilities of being a US company When did this suddenly become "businesses will do whatever the government says regardless of earlier contracts signed"?
463.
by beej71 8mo ago
> Of course if they have applied it to every OS, not just the big corporate-controlled options, that’s a dumb choice. I guess we'll just have to trust that our legislators are technologically savvy...
464.
by beej71 8mo ago
> The goal in my mind is to have an account a parent can setup for their child. This account is set up by an account with more permissions access. Then the app store depends on that OS level feature to tell what apps are can be offered t
465.
by beej71 8mo ago
Is `ls` an application? Is `cat`? This thing is so broadly-written, the only thing saving you from needing to give you age to your toaster is that it's not a "general-purpose" computing device. Never mind that it can run DOOM
466.
by beej71 8mo ago
All good questions the legislators had no idea even existed.
467.
by beej71 8mo ago
I can't tell if this is just trolling or a genuine take. I'm any case, it's too simplistic.
468.
by beej71 8mo ago
War Operations Plan Response.
469.
by beej71 8mo ago
> There's plenty of cheap land if you dare going a bit further that big cities, at least in my country. Yes, but it's cheap because there aren't a million people bidding on it, which is what will happen when everyone moves
470.
by beej71 8mo ago
Right now the AI bros are shouting from the rooftops that we're going to have no income and we'll have plenty of time to grow our own food. So I guess we have to weigh the pros and cons of that against UBI. And, further, if people
471.
by beej71 8mo ago
If the people running these things are doomers, there's no need for capitalism to work beyond what it takes them to build their compounds and bunkers right now. And since a large number of them seem to be building compounds and bunkers
472.
by beej71 8mo ago
That only makes sense if capitalism is irrelevant.
473.
by beej71 8mo ago
It's true... maybe we can live like we did 2,000 years ago. "Nobody will prevent you..." Can I plant on your property and keep all the produce? My property isn't big enough to support my family of two. Where shall I plan
474.
by beej71 8mo ago
> Pretty simple solution: all tech out of schools, back to paper. That'll do something, but making maximally-capable individuals probably ain't it. There's a balance to be struck here.
475.
by beej71 8mo ago
Even with vouchers, there are specific solutions and systems you're allowed to use.
476.
by beej71 8mo ago
It would be exceptionally easy to pass a law requiring verification at the OS level. Politicians are technical morons.
477.
by beej71 8mo ago
> I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification. And I'm quoting all of that because it lacks an explicit (or implicit) promise of modification. :) It was (emphasis on past-tense) so-trusted b
478.
by beej71 8mo ago
> If you rely on `add -f` you will forget to commit something important. But isn't the idea in TFA to blacklist the entire `build/` tree? We don't want to add anything there.
479.
by beej71 8mo ago
Surely you most see that this is a bureaucratic impossibility. It's not a technical issue.
480.
by beej71 8mo ago
What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.

More ›