Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pera's commentslogin

CNN interviewed Stephen Miller last night:

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46509694

Here is a clip:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tidejP41CBk


The Home License for personal, non-commercial use, moved to an annual subscription model:

https://uk.mathworks.com/pricing-licensing.html?prodcode=HOM...

I am very sad because I was awaiting for my Learn & Development budget at work to renew to get a license to use the Antenna Toolbox :_(


Thanks for mentioning this project, I have been looking for a good reverb plugin for Linux for a while now and this sounds great.

There might be a plugin based on freeverb, which is also a good sounding one. I ohave it as a logue unit, so can't recommend one immediately. At least I know greybox based on actual device comparison, as he owns one and has been doing this for 5 years sans AI.

Here is a link for those like me who have not read Article 5 before, with additional comments:

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...


Given that Big Tech is training AI on copyrighted material downloaded from shadow library torrents it's safe to assume that they don't care about licenses at all.

Plus the US government is pro Big Tech and they will protect them at all cost.


it strikes me as a dangerous time to try going to court over this as politics are currently aligned to fight back with new laws overriding court interpretations, at least in the US. God knows what's happening in China; afaik, it's a free-for-all outside requirements to avoid "sensitive topics". Between US and China, you have nearly all of the "top 100" LLMs.


It's intermittent for me now, some requests go through if I refresh enough times, but no incident according to the status page still...


Many thing are "here to stay", should Mozilla also implement a "share with TikTok" functionality into their browser?

> or get left behind.

Last time I heard this phrase it was about VR, and before that it was NFTs. I wished the tech community wasn't so susceptible to FOMO sentiments.


Indeed. I never understood, let alone bought into, the NFT hype, but I think VR is a good reference point for AI:

There was a real, genuine product in the Oculus Rift. It did something that was an incremental improvement over the previous state of the art which enabled new consumer experiences for low cost.

The Metaverse was laughable, and VR got glued to a lot of things where it added zero value, or worse negative value, for example my attempts to watch pre-recorded 3D video gave me nausea because the camera can only rotate, not displace, with my head movements.

Compare and contrast with AI:

LLMs and Diffusion models are also real, genuine products, that are incremental improvement over the previous state of the art which enabled new consumer experiences for low cost.

A lot of the attempts to integrate these AI have been laughable, and have added zero-to-negative value.


Non corporate VR is actually doing some interesting things - but yeah, what Meta did with it was pure garbage.


I didn't mean it as VR being useless - I'm sure it can be useful for some applications or fun for gaming - my point was that you shouldn't fear getting left behind just for not having an Apple Vision Pro app or a land in the Metaverse :)

Another way to see this: Hammers can be useful, the Internet can be useful, but this doesn't mean that as a hammer manufacturer you should make your next hammer an IoT product ASAP or you will be left behind.


Well stated, agreed. :)

Just wanted to note that even after the bad publicity that companies like Meta (ugly avatars, unusable bland virtual spaces) or Apple (overpriced device with no software or content) have given to VR, some people tend to regard it as dead even though there is quite a vibrant user and creator community doing some incredible things (even just what people do with VRChat is amazing!). And there are even companies that seem to get it (Valve).


Meanwhile MI6 offers an onion service for secure communications:

mi6govukbfxe5pzxqw3otzd2t4nhi7v6x4dljwba3jmsczozcolx2vqd.onion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYB129pGq0k


Yeah so that they can MITM it.


Please provide us with:

As many personal details as possible



Remind me to never look at twitter replies again, by far most counterproductive threads I've seen


70% is bot traffic, the rest is brain damaged terminally online human shells.

It really isn't representative of the real world average human intelligence and capacity to debate or even discuss ideas.


I hope the bots get the vote eventually. /s


In a sane world I would have agreed but in the US at least I am not certain this is still true: In Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup expressed his views that the work of an LLM is equivalent to the one of a person, see around page 12 where he argues that human recalling things from memory and AI inference are effectively the same from a legal perspective

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/jnvwbgqlzpw/...

To me this makes the clean-room distinction very hard to assert, what am I missing?


If a human reads the code and then writes an implementation this is not clean room and the LLM would in most cases be equivalent to that.

Clean room requires the person writing the implementation do have no special knowledge of the original implementation.


Could you share a source for this definition? As far as I know it means no having access to the code only during the implementation of the new project


Clean room reverse engineering always involves a wall of some kind between the person figuring out how the tech works, and the person creating the new tech. Usually the wall is only allowing one-way communication via a specification of the behavior of the old tech, perhaps reviewed by a lawyer to ensure nothing copyrighted leaks across.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall


Thanks for those links, I read a couple of the cited comments on those cases and still cannot find any mentions of restrictions for engineers who at some point in the past had access to the code.

Nordstrom Consulting v. M&S Technologies, which is possibly the most relevant case, describes a process for developing under a clean room environment and from what I understand it seems to focus on isolation of engineering teams and resources (except when required for interoperability). I did not find mentions of assessing the cohort of engineers for prior access to the copyrighted material but if I have missed that please let me know.

I also wanted to say that I am not asking this because I am thinking to start an unethical license laundering business, I am only trying to understand the meaning of making LLMs legally equivalent to human workers.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: