Whether or not Meta wins this case, I'm never going to support any government that supports both LLMs and IP. Like we have to put up with IP despite having no clear value to a digital society but as soon as it becomes inconvenient it goes out the window? Nah, let's just trash the state and start over.
It's going to take centuries to undo the damage wracked by IP-supported private enterprise. And now we also have to put up with fucking chatbots. This is the worst timeline.
The good news is that the internet is, fundamentally and in a way that no legacy state can alter, not a place where IP is cognizable.
You are free to copy bytes as you see fit, and the internet treats them identically whether they are random noise or whether a codec can turn them into music, film, books, or whatever inspires you.
The problem is that some humans, justifying their behavior by claiming it as "official", may act out with violence against you if they (rightly or wrongly, that's important to note) perceive that your actions are causing the internet to copy bytes to which they object.
Enduring nonviolence is likely yet ahead as consensus grows over the end of the legitimacy of these legacy states.
I hope you don't think I'm snarky because I'm serious. If you're an American citizen you can homestead in Alaska and cut yourself off from all this if you like.
edit: i'm serious. many americans would be much happier taking this option if they knew it existed. i may take it myself
I didn't know that, but in that case there are a lot of young men and women on HN who are financically successful, but are tremendously unhappy. That's the case for me when I looked into it 25 years ago.
I don't the US government is representative of any kind of advisable behavior. Perhaps if they weren't doing stuff that makes people want to murder them we wouldn't have to light piles of cash on fire to protect the perpetrators.
Whether or not it’s advisable doesn’t really change the fact that the if US government is commonly doing something then that it is not correct to describe a security impact to those SOPs as “hardly a security risk”
How is this comment any better than the attitude its commenting on?Just live your life, you want to take pictures do, you don't don't, you want to post your whole life in Instagram do. Life is whatever you want it to be.
> They are the first to notice how many people around them are taking pictures or posing or looking "ridiculous", worrying how themselves would look if they did the same, sometimes wanting deep down to do the same but held back by their own perceived judgement of others potentially turning on them.
This is incredibly arrogant & entirely projection.
I don't think diplomas have mattered for decades, at least in tech. Let's not pretend anything improved with the introduction of chatbots.
Annyway, any advantage is entirely offset by having to live in a world with LLMs. I'd prefer the tradition of having to educate retarded college graduates. At least they grow into retarded adults. What are we gonna do about chatbots? You can't even educate them, let alone pinocchio them.
And they were supported because they were useful labor. Even an unskilled, brand-new apprentice could pump the bellows, sweep the forge, haul wood and water, deliver messages. If it frees up the master to produce more valuable output, that’s a win-win. Then they can grow into increasingly valuable tasks as they gain awareness and skill.
IMO one of the big problems is that we’ve gone too far with the assumption that learners can’t be valuable until after they’re done learning. Partly a cultural shift around the role of children and partly the reality that knowledge work doesn’t require much unskilled labor compared to physical industries.
Why haven't people bludgeoned them into opening their software if its so useful? This is inevitable; in fact you could measure the long-term efficiency of an industry by how quickly this happens. Movie studios are famously bad at spending money (yes there are exceptions, but they can be counted on one hand).
I can't read the tone of this post, but "AI" as it stands as a marketing term for the last ~45 years has little to do with rigor. These are workers producing profit, not scientists. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Scientists deal with empiricism, not sales.
> If all we were interested in was moving the weights around, you’d be right to use a tool to help you.
Does the use of a quantifiable metric like a GPA not exacerbate this? In a world where people take a GPA seriously, you'd have to be irrational to not consider cheating a viable option.
You could say the same about credit score and dating apps. These institutions assist the most predatory and harm the most vulnerable.
It's not clear what benefit or use this is intended to provide (presumably they would have detailed its functionality if they intended to communicate this), but I assume it's ~super meaningful. I assume it's~ a scraping endpoint to add a url.
Edit: can't figure out how to use strikeout; please interpret the tildes as such.
Yes! Sorry. MCP is a new protocol from anthropic to standardize sharing tools and context with LLMs. Before, the tool calling api from openai was standard but tool makers all built their own mechanisms for defining and sharing tools.
It's a bit of a stretch but MCP is to LLM enabled applications what REST is to web applications.
It's going to take centuries to undo the damage wracked by IP-supported private enterprise. And now we also have to put up with fucking chatbots. This is the worst timeline.