Respect, that’s an accomplishment for sure. It’s been a while since I’ve played, but what I really like about DCSS is how it’s about exercising good probabilistic judgment under high stakes, it challenges you to manage your emotions and reflect on your biases in a way not a lot of games do.
I hate most of the companies paying people to write code though, isn’t it a good thing if their code is shit that no one can understand and doomed to collapse under its own weight?
From what I can tell it seems like it’s sort of up to them how much they want to play a character vs streaming as themselves, with the possible exception of the ones whose vtuber identities are the intellectual property of a company that employs them. There’s a spectrum of things like how much they lean into their character lore, do a voice/mannerisms, or how much they use the avatar as a privacy shield and avoid revealing personal details.
Not that there’s anything wrong with it either way, it’s basically similar to pseudonymous internet identities, but for live streamers. Anyway if we’re shilling vtubers I want to shoutout my favorite chicken themed vtuber, Henemimi
The demand has been fueled by a wave of outreach from fans who want to see the final episode with others and support the series, as well as a fear of being spoiled on what happens in the episode before its YouTube release.
I really like this show and have thought about seeing it in theaters, but I would want to talk about it and people are gonna be pissed about spoilers
Doesn’t Minecraft have its own controversies with Microsoft imposing various forms of direct control over ostensibly private servers? Anyway it’s obviously a special case regardless because of the unusually expansive modding community. It’s hypothetically possible for games to have a private server friendly business model, but the trend has been for the biggest successes to have a freemium business model which arguably would make less money if they offered private servers (because people would use them as a way to avoid the exploitative bullshit the game is trying to profit from).
Not to say that such a requirement would be bad for videogames. It’s just clearly a much bigger fight if companies have reason to believe a law is a potential financial threat to them, and they would have much more reason to think that with a private server requirement that isn’t limited to EOL games.
Because people would use the self-hosted servers to route around the company’s rent seeking and control, and they might make less money. The compromise here is, if the game would be deleted anyway, they don’t even have that much of a justification.
But how did he get it up on the display stand he can’t reach to begin with
Goldberg was also active on Twitter, Reddit, Disqus and others under the username MoonMetropolis,[7] a “free speech absolutist” who was involved with the Gamergate controversy. He would frequently use this persona to criticize the works of his other personas such as anti-free speech activist Tanya Cohen, arguing against points that he himself had made.[38]
Sums up a lot of modern political discourse pretty well imo. This kind of person, making disingenuous arguments against themselves, maybe for some reasons but mostly because they are insane.
Countries like Canada cutting us off from their data is also good for those of us in the US under threat from our own government and corporations.
If that is the case, is chardet 7.0.0 a derivative work of chardet, or is it a public domain LLM work? The whole LLM project is fraught with questions like these
I think the reimplementation stuff is a separate question because the argument for it working looks a lot stronger, and because it doesn’t have anything to do with the source material having LLM output in it. Also if this method holds as legally valid, it’s going to be easier to just do that than justify copying code directly (which would probably have to only be copies of the explicitly generated parts of the code, requiring figuring out how to replace the rest), which means it won’t matter whether some portion of it was generated. I don’t see much reason to think that a purist approach to accepting LLM code will offer any meaningful protection.
I’m mostly just playing along with your thought experiment. As I said, we know that projects are already accepting LLM code into projects that are nominally copyleft.
So what though? If they aren’t entirely generated, you can’t make a full fork, and why would a partial fork be useful? If it isn’t disclosed what parts are AI, you can’t even do that without risking breaking the law.
but if they instead say that they copied the work into their LLM and produced a copy without protections (as chardet has done), the courts might be less willing to afford the project copyright protections if the project itself was making use of the same copyright stripping technology to strip others’ work to claim protections over copied work.
ianal but does it even work like that? Is there any specific reason to think it does? I don’t believe you really get credit for purity and fairness vibes in the legal system. Same goes for the idea that code where it is ambiguous whether it is AI output could be considered public domain, seems kind of implausible, is there actually any reason to think the law works that way? If it did, then any copyrighted work not accompanied by proof of human authorship would be at risk, uncharacteristic for a system focused on giving big copyright holders what they want without trouble.
the only code that may ultimately be protected is closed source code - you can’t copy it if you don’t have the source.
There is no way, leaks happen, big tech companies have massive influence, a situation where their code falls into the public domain as soon as the public gets their hands on it just isn’t realistic. I feel suspicious that many of these concerns are coming from a place of not wanting LLM code in open source projects for other reasons, rather than the existence of a strong legal case that it represents a real and serious threat to copyleft licensing.
AI code damages copyleft projects no matter what - we know that some projects are already accepting AI generated code, and they don’t ask you to hide it - it is all in the open.
I don’t see how that follows or contradicts what I’m saying though. They could hide it, easily. Even if they don’t hide it, how useful would it really ever be to only use the portions of the codebase that have been labelled as having been AI generated? Can one even rely on those labels? Making use of the non-copyrightability of AI output to copy code in otherwise unauthorized ways does not seem like a straightforward or legally safe thing to do. That’s especially the case because high profile proprietary software projects also make heavy use of AI, it doesn’t seem likely the courts will support a legal precedent that strips those projects of copyright and allow anyone to use them for whatever. So basically I’m not at all convinced about the idea that AI code damages copyleft projects, it seems unlikely to be a problem in practice.
The only portions of the work that can be copyrighted are the actual creative work the person has put into the work.
Ok, but it’s not like everyone is documenting exactly which parts are generated, curated, or human written.
Maintainers cannot prevent the LLM code from being incorporated into closed source projects without reciprocity
Say someone incorporates GPL code without attribution, and gets sued for doing so. They try to make the argument in court that the source material they used is not copyrighted, because of AI. Won’t they have to prove that the parts they used were actually AI output for this defense to work? It isn’t like people are going around ignoring the copyright on things in general if they look like they were probably generated with AI, that isn’t enough to be safe from prosecution, because you usually can’t know the exact breakdown. It seems like preventing this loophole from being used would be as simple as keeping it ambiguous and not allowing submissions that positively affirm being entirely AI generated.
Well ok my mistake, it’s just that literally all the command line text editors I’ve tried, the mouse does nothing by default and people act like you’re not supposed to use it, it’s just not a core part of how the software is designed to be used
Does that actually work when they’re publicly saying the opposite, won’t judges and juries call bullshit?
I just reread the plot synopsis, still don’t get it, how is V the bad guy?
Haven’t other countries tried DNS level site blocking, and it’s very easy to get around? Does it even make any difference? The strategy of ISP copyright letters has already trained Americans to use VPNs for this, it seems like the only difference will be that I will have to turn my VPN on before searching for torrents instead of just before actually opening my torrent client
maybe more advanced scripts are needed
It’s funny that instead of imagining finding people who are actually into that, anon defaults to the frog boiling manipulation approach