gpm

7 ms·

91.
by gpm 2mo ago
No? It says > Open source RTS game built on top of the Recoil RTS Engine BAR is a game, Recoil (a different thing - not the repository I linked) is an engine it is built on top of. Recoil is - incidentally - a fork of spring, an engine m
92.
by gpm 2mo ago
No, an engine is only the code that is shared between games. For instance "urban terror" by frozen sands is a closed source game on top of a (now) open source engine (the Quake3 engine). Quake3 is a (now) open source game (with
93.
by gpm 2mo ago
Henry Yuen's (whose work problem 6 builds on) comments on this are worth reading IMO: https://bsky.app/profile/henryyuen.bsky.social/post/3ms2jpch...
94.
by gpm 2mo ago
Henry Yuen's (whose work problem 6 builds on) comments on this are worth reading IMO: https://bsky.app/profile/henryyuen.bsky.social/post/3ms2jpch...
95.
by gpm 2mo ago
Similar to this I've never seen a project request anyone license their github PR comments under any license whatsoever even though they're undoubtedly copyrighted and used in the creation of the actual source code.
96.
by gpm 2mo ago
People refer to games with proprietary assets as open source all the time. The source code is open - the assets are not. For one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201265 / https://github.com&#x
97.
by gpm 2mo ago
Assuming Andy (the mailing list post) is right, no it didn't. I know this because he said so here in this comment section: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49134550 That said the AI was sort of directionality right
98.
by gpm 2mo ago
In addition to this likely not being a bug in the code you're pointing at, but the kernel (written in C). musl is literally C code, and that most rust users compile against glibc just like most C users do.
99.
by gpm 2mo ago
> Alternatively, it could be a hardware bug, since afaict it's only been repro'd on one hardware config. (I know there are a bunch of ARM cores with erratas around TLB invalidation) Which raises the question of whether any HN r
100.
by gpm 2mo ago
It doesn't need to be fully accurate, merely always conservative. It's a question of cost (how much performance does the conservative estimate waste) not feasibility.
101.
by gpm 2mo ago
I believe their point is that a mile is defined to be exactly 1609.344 meters, a gallon is defined to be exactly 3.785411784 litres, a pound (mass) is defined to be exactly 453.59237 grams and so on. These are all just weird multiples of me
102.
by gpm 3mo ago
No, the damages however are the cost of a single book sale (actually just the profit from one) because the only thing that anthropic did that broke the law was pirate it instead of buying a copy (as found by the court...)
103.
by gpm 3mo ago
Anthropic paid (or is paying, not sure the schedule for class members receiving payouts) 3000 per work they were found to have infringed - 30 is a fair approximation of the cost to buy a book.
104.
by gpm 3mo ago
In this world too, the punishment was, ballpark, 100x direct damages.
105.
by gpm 3mo ago
I broadly agree with your take on the state of the US - but this is a case where given the specific facts at hand I'm confident it still got to the truth. I can understand why as someone who didn't follow it and the more corrupt l
106.
by gpm 3mo ago
This would have been a problem but it turns out that Anthropic is actually valued multiple orders of magnitude more than a copy of all the books in the world. So they survived the significant legal consequences.
107.
by gpm 3mo ago
Great, let's go down to the courthouse and get some sworn testimony as to the ownership, value, condition, and so on and so forth of the bridge. And some document review and discovery run through professional legal firms under the same
108.
by gpm 3mo ago
> The vast, vast, VAST majority of the original datasets were from pirated books and the like And there's been significant legal consequences as a result > Also, arguably a robots.txt is the exact mechanism to follow to do the ma
109.
by gpm 3mo ago
> Downloading every torrent of all e-books ever is pretty clearly illegal (or at least it fuckin would be if I did it). Pretty sure like, multiple labs have been popped for that though. Oh it is, and at least anthropic has paid $1.5 bill
110.
by gpm 3mo ago
Why not? Seems like a perfectly normal contact term to me. Or do you just mean that US courts don't have enough teeth to prevent Chinese companies from violating contracts? On that I agree.
111.
by gpm 3mo ago
I think you've basically got the legal theory. Training a neural network isn't prohibited by copyright law so if you can legally get your hands on something (e.g. by sending a GET request to someone with rights to serve the conten
112.
by gpm 3mo ago
I strongly suspect the flip side is that in the future it enables you to train smarter models by "distilling" the end result of the super duper heavily thinking models.
113.
by gpm 3mo ago
Blue sky... Yes, at least for me. I double checked in private browsing before posting that claim.
114.
by gpm 3mo ago
Oh, that is unfortunate. Bluesky implicitly adds the .bsky.social domain name. Hopefully tangled starts doing the same some day.
115.
by gpm 3mo ago
Fwiw the sign up/in process for me was "click login, type in my existing blue sky handle, type in my password (into a bsky domain name login prompt), click authorize". I expect that's the... more optimized flow at this p
116.
by gpm 3mo ago
Also in the US - strange choice
117.
by gpm 3mo ago
I wish them the best of luck, but I don't expect them to succeed, and unspecified plans don't constitute a demonstration of feasibility. Plenty of people have made plans to solve unsolvable problems in the past, me included. I str
118.
by gpm 3mo ago
It's possible to detect and ban the version of the problematic pattern that I made as short and simple as possible to illustrate the point, sure. I'm general though, I don't believe it is practical to do so. Not without every
119.
by gpm 3mo ago
> and there's been no consequences. Anthropic paid $1.5 billion for that, and never publicly deployed a model derived from the illegally downloaded data. I'm not sure about the other companies off the top of my head - but I rat
120.
by gpm 3mo ago
To an extent, though for significant (in monetary terms) violations of the law the teeth tend to pay for themselves (but do so by not fully compensating the people whose behalf they are supposedly acting on). More problematically there are

More ›