We're running out of math. Maybe the president needs to establish a Strategic Math Reserve.
The article literally says "the new programs mash up work done by human minds." Implying that they are not doing any real work of their own, just "mashing up" work done by humans.
Check back in a few decades, and he'll have added some more.
This seems to be a very typical fallacy. "AI is just a collection of stuff people made." No. The Internet was that. AI is something that was TRAINED on stuff people made. So are you. The logical outcome of this fallacy…
Is he... a goer...eh? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Does he go?
Maybe work on a larger font size, pal.
The answer to his question is "yes." If the book isn't destroyed, it becomes a liability to Anthropic, because then it's no longer format-shifting.
As far as I know, if humans are having a discussion about the structure of the code and deliberately making changes (such as in github or on a forum) that represents human creativity. If you hit a button and then make…
Company A: You stole our code >:( Company B: Can you tell us which part we stole? Company A: You can safely assume that nearly every PR had human input, unless you have a way to prove otherwise. In any case we can prove…
I've explained this many times. LLMs don't "copy original work." ChatGPT doesn't contain copies of books inside it, any more than your brain is a copy of the various books you have read. The LLM model isn't physically…
The whole job of a Wikipedia author is to take source material and reword and summarize it into an article. They're essentially acting as human LLMs. Wikipedia even has very specific rules against "original research."…
Yes, Wikipedia gets its content largely by hovering up the web, without the consent of the authors. For example you can cite a New York Times article in Wikipedia, without getting the consent of the NYT author.…
Sure, I'll remind you. The most popular encyclopedia of our time, Wikipedia, doesn't pay most of its contributors (I think they do have some administrative staff or something?). Nor do they pay journalists or authors…
Even assuming that AI code can't be copyrighted by the person running the AI (seems like a stretch), the company just needs to prove that someone, at some point, made a direct modification to the code not through the…
Grok lobster! (Rock lobster music starts playing)
He's implying that other projects in the Linux ecosystem have banned AI. Which is mostly untrue, but I'm sure there's at least one out there.
Linux has not said "no AI contributions or repos". In fact Linux has a policy explicitly allowing AI.
If it was filed in 2008, wouldn't the patent have expired in 2028 anyway? Or am I missing something?
Saying that you can't copy something is different from saying that it is illegal to read it. For example, it is legal for me to read Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451" when I check it out from the library. It is not…
Making your code open source was consenting to have people (and AIs) read it and learn from it. As an open source developer myself, I always understood that.
Homeless people who live in the sewers. But first, you have to learn karate.
Claude, build me a game engine. Make no mistakes.
You know. Clem. I've said too much already!
2025 is 10 years ago in AI time.
Generally following the law in the country you're located in is not considered a highly political act.
We're running out of math. Maybe the president needs to establish a Strategic Math Reserve.
The article literally says "the new programs mash up work done by human minds." Implying that they are not doing any real work of their own, just "mashing up" work done by humans.
Check back in a few decades, and he'll have added some more.
This seems to be a very typical fallacy. "AI is just a collection of stuff people made." No. The Internet was that. AI is something that was TRAINED on stuff people made. So are you. The logical outcome of this fallacy…
Is he... a goer...eh? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Does he go?
Maybe work on a larger font size, pal.
The answer to his question is "yes." If the book isn't destroyed, it becomes a liability to Anthropic, because then it's no longer format-shifting.
As far as I know, if humans are having a discussion about the structure of the code and deliberately making changes (such as in github or on a forum) that represents human creativity. If you hit a button and then make…
Company A: You stole our code >:( Company B: Can you tell us which part we stole? Company A: You can safely assume that nearly every PR had human input, unless you have a way to prove otherwise. In any case we can prove…
I've explained this many times. LLMs don't "copy original work." ChatGPT doesn't contain copies of books inside it, any more than your brain is a copy of the various books you have read. The LLM model isn't physically…
The whole job of a Wikipedia author is to take source material and reword and summarize it into an article. They're essentially acting as human LLMs. Wikipedia even has very specific rules against "original research."…
Yes, Wikipedia gets its content largely by hovering up the web, without the consent of the authors. For example you can cite a New York Times article in Wikipedia, without getting the consent of the NYT author.…
Sure, I'll remind you. The most popular encyclopedia of our time, Wikipedia, doesn't pay most of its contributors (I think they do have some administrative staff or something?). Nor do they pay journalists or authors…
Even assuming that AI code can't be copyrighted by the person running the AI (seems like a stretch), the company just needs to prove that someone, at some point, made a direct modification to the code not through the…
Grok lobster! (Rock lobster music starts playing)
He's implying that other projects in the Linux ecosystem have banned AI. Which is mostly untrue, but I'm sure there's at least one out there.
Linux has not said "no AI contributions or repos". In fact Linux has a policy explicitly allowing AI.
If it was filed in 2008, wouldn't the patent have expired in 2028 anyway? Or am I missing something?
Saying that you can't copy something is different from saying that it is illegal to read it. For example, it is legal for me to read Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451" when I check it out from the library. It is not…
Making your code open source was consenting to have people (and AIs) read it and learn from it. As an open source developer myself, I always understood that.
Homeless people who live in the sewers. But first, you have to learn karate.
Claude, build me a game engine. Make no mistakes.
You know. Clem. I've said too much already!
2025 is 10 years ago in AI time.
Generally following the law in the country you're located in is not considered a highly political act.