tjr

25 ms·

331.
by tjr 4y ago
The interruptions are the best part!
332.
by tjr 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_learning_machine
333.
by tjr 4y ago
I think that, just as content creators can designate a work to under various Creative Commons licenses, for commercial use, or for non-commercial use, or under MIT licenses, or GPL, or proprietary licenses, etc.... We may find that letting
334.
by tjr 4y ago
I agree. A great deal of "art that might sell" is already borderline repetitive, uncreative garbage. Maybe pleasant garbage, but still. Nothing anybody would be really interested in, except to add a bit of color to empty space. Th
335.
by tjr 4y ago
The statement I replied to spoke of the point of copyright being to encourage artists to create more art; not simply "to create more art". But neither of those is really what's written down, with the (U.S. law) point of copyr
336.
by tjr 4y ago
What we may have here is a need for some new use cases in copyright. The current laws were written with humans in mind -- human creators, human consumers. To retroactively say, "well, you released this to the [human] public under U.S.
337.
by tjr 4y ago
Possibly. When wearing my "artist" hat, I work on two different things: art that I personally care about, and art that might sell. If AI made all the art that might sell, that would give me more time and energy to work on the art
338.
by tjr 4y ago
I don't think that taking one's art and using it to train a machine to be able to make limitless art is super encouraging to the artist.
339.
by tjr 4y ago
Sure. Maybe that analogy is in fact not even fair. The main point I was getting at is, an AI system has already used a huge quantity of data before we could even try to compare it with what a human does. But even at that point, I would agre
340.
by tjr 4y ago
People love to draw the analogy to human listening, and while in principle I agree, the AI is still not human and the argument isn't necessarily valid It could be worth considering: humans are [ostensibly, I claim] intelligent by def
341.
by tjr 4y ago
It’s okay graphic design. He even goes on to say it’s not a photograph. Well, that's the bit that I think is most odd here. It's not a photograph. Whether if AI-generated images are fair game in art competitions in general, I gu
342.
by tjr 4y ago
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5736 is about pre-GNU Emacs, with history of Emacs going back to the mid-1970s.
343.
by tjr 4y ago
1. Some industries safety-critical (like mine, aerospace) have a mixture of bureaucracy, process, and protocols that will result in it being much longer before a nondeterministic neural network system takes over the human engineer jobs. I&#
344.
by tjr 4y ago
I wonder, why single Lisp out for a winter? If solving computational problems moves away from writing programs and toward writing GPT prompts, then wouldn't that forecast a winter for every programming language?
345.
by tjr 4y ago
I find this a real concern when it comes to the proposition of "replace every programmer with GPT". I think the reality is, there are cases where it matters, and cases where it doesn't matter (at least, not very much). I work
346.
by tjr 4y ago
Would we even still be able to? If we stop learning how to code (because AI does that for us) we might not be very good reviewers.
347.
by tjr 4y ago
Maybe they already did, and this "bug bounty program" is just for appearances.
348.
by tjr 4y ago
You are correct, of course. I was writing in the context of the above story, but I failed to clearly express that. I should have written, "Updating someone else's GPL code ..." Thank you.
349.
by tjr 4y ago
I worked for a company which licensed its product as GPLv2. One of our clients (who we trained on the product) saw this and then began competing with us by selling their own version of our product. The company released a newer version of t
350.
by tjr 4y ago
I have no reason to believe that a GPT model would not undergo the same criteria as any other software tool. The process is outlined in DO-330, but the essence of it is that, if a software tool is performing a function that (a) replaces a h
351.
by tjr 4y ago
My understanding is that ChatGPT (&co.) was not designed as, and is not intended to be, any sort of expert system, or knowledge representation system. The fact that it does as well as it does anyway is pretty amazing. But even so -- as
352.
ChatGPT: Who Owns the Content Generated?(jdsupra.com)
1 points by tjr 4y ago|0 comments
353.
by tjr 4y ago
Couldn't humans make mistakes? Sure. And that's why there are so many checks and balances in avionics software, compared to most other software industries. The more safety critical it is, the more it is scrutinized. Why would we n
354.
by tjr 4y ago
Maybe I am also not being clear. I agree with every single point you made, from the perspective of being, either now or in the future, technologically possible. However, unless the FAA accepts the output of AI tools in lieu of humans perfor
355.
by tjr 4y ago
composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery. I would say you could have a software system wit
356.
by tjr 4y ago
The way you see AI being integrated into avionics SWE process - having to certify anything - I don't think that's how it's going to develop. What do you base this on? I find it hard to imagine the FAA relaxing their require
357.
by tjr 4y ago
With avionics code, it's not so much about trusting a programmer (be they human or artificial), but about thorough verification and sign-off with multiple parties involved. (As an aerospace software person, I frequently like to try to
358.
by tjr 4y ago
Same experience here. Most of my career has been in aerospace simulation. The answers to my nontrivial problems were not in Google or StackOverflow in the first place. GPT can clearly help with the easy stuff, but that's really not ver
359.
by tjr 4y ago
It is impossible for a potato knish to have the same gravitational pull as Earth, regardless of its size. The gravitational pull of an object depends on its mass, and even the largest potato knish would have nowhere near the mass of Earth.
360.
by tjr 4y ago
Interesting example. I wonder if it is building a small world model (a la SHRDLU), or if it is answering based on the most statistically likely words, or what.

More ›