Vehicles are tied to roads more or less and make contact with the most dangerous animal much more likely. Keeping food out of the tent is probably enough to discourage most animals from snooping.
Unless you're getting preventative screenings frequently, pancreatic cancer can be one of those ones that don't show any symptoms til you're already in stage 4. And most normal doctors will tell you to not do large amounts of preventative screenings.
I asked this in the other thread (no response, but I was a bit late)
How does anyone using AI like this have confidence that they aren't unintentionally plagiarizing code and violating the terms of whatever license it was released under?
For random personal projects I don't see it mattering that much. But if a large corp is releasing code like this, one would hope they've done some due diligence that they have to just stolen the code from some similar repo on GitHub, laundered through a LLM.
The only section in the readme doesn't mention checking similar projects or libraries for common code:
> Every line was thoroughly reviewed and cross-referenced with relevant RFCs, by security experts with previous experience with those RFCs.
> How does anyone using AI like this have confidence that they aren't unintentionally plagiarizing code and violating the terms of whatever license it was released under?
Most of the code generated by LLMs, and especially the code you actually keep from an agent, is mid, replacement-level, boring stuff. If you're not already building projects with LLMs, I think you need to start doing that first before you develop a strong take on this. From what I see in my own work, the code being generated is highly unlikely to be distinguishable. There is more of me and my prompts and decisions in the LLM code than there can possibly be defensible IPR from anybody else, unless the very notion of, like, wrapping a SQLite INSERT statement in Golang is defensible.
The best way I can explain the experience of working with an LLM agent right now is that it is like if every API in the world had a magic "examples" generator that always included whatever it was you were trying to do (so long as what you were trying to do was within the obvious remit of the library).
All of the big LLM vendors have a "copyright shield" indemnity clause for their paying customers - a guarantee that if you get sued over IP for output from their models their legal team will step in to fight on your behalf.
I'm fairly confident that it's not just plagiarizing because I asked the LLM to implement a novel interface with unusual semantics. I then prompted for many specific fine-grain changes to implement features the way I wanted. It seems entirely implausible to me that there could exist prior art that happened to be structured exactly the way I requested.
Note that I came into this project believing that LLMs were plagiarism engines -- I was looking for that! I ended up concluding that this view was not consistent with the output I was actually seeing.
Safety in the shadow of giant tech companies. People were upset when Microsoft released Copilot trained on GitHub data, but nobody who cared doing do anything about it, and nobody who could have done something about it cared, so it just became the new norm.
This is an excellent question that the AI-boosters always seem to dance around. Three replies already are saying “Nobody cares.” Until they do. I’d be willing to bet that some time in the near future, some big company is going to care a lot and that there will be a landmark lawsuit that significantly changes the LLM landscape. Regulation or a judge is going to eventually decide the extent to which someone can use AI to copy someone else’s IP, and it’s not going to be pretty.
It just presumes a level of fixation in copyright law that I don’t think is realistic. There was a landmark lawsuit MAI v. Peak Computer in 1993, where judges determined that repairing a computer without the permission of the operating system’s author is copyright infringement, and it didn’t change the landscape at all because everyone immediately realized it’s not practical for things to work that way. There’s no realistic world where AI tools end up being extremely useful but nobody uses them because of a court ruling.
The consensus for right or wrong, is that LLM produced code (unless repeated verbatim) is equivalent to you or I legitimately stating our novel understanding of mixed sources some of which may be copyrighted.
Wouldn't this melt "quickly" due to solar radiation based on how dark it is? That is to say, I wouldn't it most likely be closer to 100 years old than 100,000 years old?
That's for new soot depositing on ordinary, existing glaciers with previously high albedo. That causes a spiraling feedback effect of more forest fires and accelerating glacier melt,
It's probable that these dark glaciers are mostly sludge with only a bit of ice. We won't know until some field researchers go out there and gather data and samples.
This post--which actually engages with the content of the article--is being downvoted, while "Do black Labrador icebergs also have webbed feet, to swim better?" is being upvoted.
Where do we run once the redditification of HN is complete?
Fish harvester: might catch fish, but might also be the one that cleans/processes them and isn't actually involved in pulling the fish out of the water
In what sense could adult neurogenesis be useful? Stroke recovery? What about for "normal" people? And as opposed to just brain changes from traditional neuroplasticity?
As someone who works for a similar large org, it's just as likely that some low level programmer put it in without much thought, and then this got surfaces to higher up people who didn't know about it and told them to remove it immediately.
It seems incredibly unlikely a low level programmer could come up with this method then get the necessary code into both the tracking pixel served to third party sites and Meta's android apps without some higher ups knowing about it.
Zuckerberg personally signed off on torrenting books for Llama. It would be a particularly dim group of “low level” programmers who did this without trying to first secure some upper level approvals to share the blame once caught.
reply