Alright. I didn't see any gotchas or argument, and didn't make the comment.
That being said, reading the context I assume you're referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn't objectionable.
I don't really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it's the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it's not like conversations can't drift to adjacent topics.
Besides, closed-source code developers could've been stealing open-source code all along. They don't really need AI to do that.
Yes, but that's the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there's consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.
People don't launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.
Regardless, it wasn't even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I've already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.
I believe what they're referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.
Because of the untested nature of the situation, it's unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.
We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.
This image seems to explain it.
Proton is the windows compatibility layer. Lepton is the android compatibility layer. FEX translates x86 (most desktop computers) applications to run on ARM (most mobile devices).
Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.
It's not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it's not the "rebellion" people want to make it out to be.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries
It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it's supposed to go. It's not resistance, it's all of them being on the same team and talking.
Eh, that's not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn't research, it's just indicating what something is.
The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that's representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.
It's similar to the various charts and animations.
Yes, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download
That's because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.
I don't love an abstract legal identity. I'm capable of being happy with institutions, the culture composed if the people living there, and adoring the natural splendor.
Right now I'm actively angry at the institutions, a huge number of people have taken a sharp turn towards fascism, and I've got no problems with the forest still.
Me and the forest are cool, and that's part of why I'm mad at the institutions.
I have no desire to live in the forest because, if nothing else, that's not good for the forest. Then the people who opted to live there became insane, and decided to largely gut all of the institutions, and make it easier to destroy the forest.
"I live in a state of natural splendor, and I'm willing to fight to let you cut it down, splash me with mercury , and blot out the sun with smoke because I don't have healthcare and fuck you for asking. It's the refugees who are the problem".
Oh my God, no. "Great place to live if you want you all your neighbors to be frighteningly conservative, the closest store to be a 30 minute drive, and the nearest hospital to be an hour away and shutting down because their public funding got cut".
And you didn't even read past the first sentence I see.
Saying they're the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they're both manipulating kinetic energy.
... How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They're both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.
At the end of the day, it's all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.
In one case it's saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.
Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.
Upsampling methods have been produced that don't use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.
Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. "I want to see your art better" as opposed to "I want to make your art better".
Been having fun trying to generate images that look like "good" CGI, but broken somehow in a more realistic looking way.
Made with the Krita AI generation plugin.
digital illustration of a male character in bright and saturated colors with playful and fun expression, created in 2D style, perfect for social media sharing. Rendered in high-resolution 10-megapixel 2K resolution with a cel-shaded comic book style , paisley Steps: 50, Sampler: Heun, CFG scale: 13, Seed: 1649780875, Size: 768x768, Model hash: 99fd5c4b6f, Model: seekArtMEGA_mega20, ControlNet Enabled: True, ControlNet Preprocessor: lineart_coarse, ControlNet Model: control_v11p_sd15_lineart [43d4be0d], ControlNet Weight: 1, ControlNet Starting Step: 0, ControlNet Ending Step: 1, ControlNet Resize Mode: Crop and Resize, ControlNet Pixel Perfect: True, ControlNet Control Mode: Balanced, ControlNet Preprocessor Parameters: "(512, 64, 64)"
If you take a picture of yourself in from the shoulders up, like in the picture, while standing in front of a blank but lightly textured wall it seems to work best.
I'm really not interested in the topic. I'm talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.
It's really not.
It's not unreasonable for someone to think "developers who use copy written code from AI aren't liable for infringement" applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don't like one of those.
It's perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn't apply both ways, but that doesn't make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.