backgroundcow

I understand LLaMA and some other models come with instructions that say that they cannot be used commercially. But, unless the creators can show that you have formally accepted a license agreement to that effect, on what legal grounds can that be enforceable?

If we look at the direction US law is moving, it seems the current legal theory is that AI generated works fall in the public domain. That means restricting their use commercially should be impossible regardless of other circumstances - public domain means that anyone can use them for anything. (But it also means that your commercial use isn't protected from others likewise using the exact same output).

If we instead look at what possible legal grounds restrictions on the output of these models could be based on if you didn't agree to a license agreement to access the model. Copyright don't restrict use, it restricts redistribution. The creators of LLMs cannot reasonably take the position that output created from their models is a derivative work of the model, when their model itself is created from copyrighted works, many of which they have no right to redistribute. The whole basis of LLMs rest on that "training data" -> "model" produces a model that isn't encumbered by the copyright of the training data. How can one take that position and simultaneously belive "model" -> "inferred output" produces copyright encumbered output? That would be a fundamentally inconsistent view.

(Note: the above is not legal advice, only free-form discussion.)

While a broad concept, in the context of your question, science is a metod to derive knowledge from observations.

Alternatives to the scientific method is to guess or obtain knowledge from others. (Most other ways I can come up with, e.g. "religion" can still be sorted under these two.)

Obtaining knowledge from others is great, but may not always be available, and the quality of the knowledge derived this way depends on the reliability of the source.

For the other alternative, every sensible metric shows how science is a better method than guessing to derive knowledge.

But, "speedy" relative to what? Relative to the walls of the room your are inside? What if you are in a falling elevator? Relative to the rotating surface of the earth? To the center of the solar system? "Relative to the portal" is the only answer to that question that makes sense.

I was incredibly confused why everyone seemed to think the YouTube channel with fun physics videos was the scum of the earth, until I realized they are named Veritasium and not Veritas.

How can it not be b? Every situation in the Portal games is already exactly like this, but with the portal fixed to a slab that moves with the rotation of the Earth, whereas in the drawing the portal moves as the sum of earth rotation + the movement of the train.

AutoNomous Ultra inStinct ram

I've never been given an actionable and effective alternative from the people who are squeamish over these kinds of protests. So I have to ask; if not this, then what? If not now, then when?

Infiltrate the political parties, especially the conservative right-wing ones that right now have disastrous environmental policies. These organisations are currently echo chambers driving a narrative that environmental policies are the enemy. They need to be reformed from within to get the message across that capitalism won't work if there isn't anyone around for the wealthy to sell their shit to. As long as political change is confined to what is seen as the "radical left", it is easy to marginalize the moment.

Cortana is/was by far the best name of the digital assistants - probably because it was created by sci-fi story writers rather than a marketing department. They should just have upgraded her with the latest AI tech and trained her to show the same kind of sassy personality as in the games and it would have been perfect.

Who in their right mind thinks "Bing copilot" is a better name? It makes me picture something like the blow-up autopilot from Airplane!

I like calling it "x-twitter", as it is short and makes sense when reading it out.

The replacement for "this is retarded" I've started to use is ~ "I guess someone had to leave early for the weekend. 'Good enough, let's ship this and go home.'" with me gesturing like Khaby Lame at, e.g., obviously broken email validation field.

It isn't quite as snappy, but at least my disappointment tend to come across.

As a different, more techy, solution that can work depending on the people you collaborate with, is to use a hosted Git service for collaboration (if you want to stay completely open source, a self-hosted GitLab).

Then, change your publication workflow to write in Markdown, ReST, or one of the other ascii formats that previews correctly, and set up your CI to render the documents automatically into, e.g., pdf:s using a converter. There are all kinds of converters from Markdown/ReST -> docs, presentation, etc. formats that are as competent - if not more so - than the usual office suites. This setup offers both online editing in the GitLab instance and offline by local cloning of the Git repo.

The side effect is that this system very seriously records and preserve your document history. You can see exactly who, at what point, changed, added, and removed things. For some types of documents, this can be very important.