I'm not a copyright lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me you can't wash a license using an LLM.
[US jurisdiction]:
Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone.
Anything in the result written by a human can be, and if it was all emitted by the LLM then that portion originally written by a human carries its own copyright.
As a work of an LLM, the entirety presumably can not be copyright, at all. Portions written by humans presumably carry their original copyright.
> [US jurisdiction]: Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone.
This is a bit stronger than the actual report where this has been discussed finds. See part 2 in https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ for details, but TL;DR, parts where humans have control over the expression may be copyrightable. But working out which parts those are is likely a difficult question (would likely require proof of provenance across many of those LLM sessions)
> While the intent is not to call for competing proposals, we believe that now is a good time to discuss and propose alternative proposals as well.
If I were a contributor I would read such language as saying "we have no respect for you or your intelligence, so we'll just straight up gaslight you and expect you to accept it."
The dictum can't be read literally - it has to be read like the manipulative, narcissist-speak that it is. And what it's telling you is - get out.
I agree.
And the next section is very clear that they want to kill the project.
> For example, rather than proposing one single concrete JIT implementation,
> it may make more sense for the PEP to describe a JIT infrastructure that
> can support multiple implementation strategies.
> Since many different and promising JIT tracing approaches continue to be proposed,
> we believe the infrastructure should make it easy to experiment with and evaluate
> those approaches within CPython rather than be highly coupled with a single strategy.
Allowing multiple strategies is far harder and as far as I know, JIT tracing is still unproven.
I'm a big fan of the pluggable jit strategy (I even gave a brief presentation about it at an earlier pycon). the idea is that you identify the seams in the interpreter where the jit interacts with the main interpreter loop, and then provide a clean mechanism for the built-in jit to be replaced by something else that works with the same api surface. it's a bit harder than letting the built-in jit be tightly coupled to and intertwined with the rest of the interpreter but certainly not far harder, and the work to get this sort of clean separation will help keep the jit maintainable even if there is never a second jit.
I suspect there were people who had alternative proposals which got implicitly blocked by this 5 year effort. Letting a subgroup run wild without proper process is not good for a project this large.
I mean it seems like they want to get a full spec of what JIT should look like in main? given the faff that hapened with the GC removal, I can sort see why they'd want to do this properly. Especially now that it seems like its practical.
It's because they say they don't want to call for competitors and then immediately do so in the second half of the same sentence. It probably wasn't written with bad intent, but you can see why people might find it a strange choice.
Well, there is a long tradition of "testing" developer candidates by asking them to exhibit skills in tasks that they never, ever, do in their work. Like whiteboard coding.
It doesn't have a great success record.
I personally would rather they exhibited expert skills in using tools, and expressing their design insight as a part of that skillset.
It's not uncommon for older aerial photos to be single-pixel lines that the film is moved past. The motion of the film is correlated with the motion across the ground, so you can reconstruct a 2nd axis from the exposure.
I don't know, I go back and forth a bit. The thing that makes me skeptical is this: where is the training data that contains the experiences and thought processes that senior developers, architects, and engineering managers go through to gain the insight they hold?
Did you ever test drive the Drafts app? It is remarkably easy to build customized workflows, both editing and document processing, and is built to be glue between different document/message apps.
It's a little late for that now since I don't own a smartphone anymore but it looks like there isn't a Linux version so the usefulness to me would have been limited anyway.
I don't think your conclusion of "hitting the wall on intelligence" is warranted.
It makes more sense to believe that scaling has hit the wall on available text data to train on, and that to continue scaling, along with whatever emergent properties arise they need much more data than exists as text.
There are orders of magnitude more data as video, audio, and images and this is what they intend to use to continue scaling.
The accepted answer is not electrically illiterate in any way.
The upvoted answer, while it may be correct, doesn't argue for the existence of the phenomenon called "induced atmospheric vibration".
It may be that it's supposed to refer to corona discharge, which does make a sound ("atmospheric vibration"). But that sound is not the root cause of anything; it is just a side effect of no consequence.
It is a plausible hypothesis that "induced atmospheric vibration" it's just someone's misunderstanding (possibly of an explanation similar to what's in that upvoted answer), with some misstranslation being a contributing factor.
The two answers simply don't contradict each other.
government official had to make press conference just to tell people to stop spreading that nonsense you promote as "electrically literate" so that is that.
whole stack overflow question is bunch of nonsense, so why do we even argue about it?
I know in the late 90s, early 2000s they were Vignette shop, back when it was a Tcl application. Can only imagine their relief getting to carry over their tcl knowledge while no longer having to suffer with Vignette. I don't think I've ever heard anyone that actually liked Vignette.
I don't recall any groups using Vignette at AOL during that time. It may be that one of the acquisitions used it prior to being acquired, but again, I never heard about it.
CNN.com was definitely using the StoryBuilder part up until the 2005 redesign as it's noted in the source of each and every article, and there were some tell-tale droppings on the home page as well.
2) "System structure mirrors organization". I.E., it's an indicator of a fragmented and disorganized structure that's not likely to produce cohesive product results.
As much as I like to dunk on how messy things can be at Google I don't think this is a really good example. Apart from small startups I would be scared if you served all of them from the same base host.
The many domains is a problem because it suggests a many-teams approach to product development, and the more cooks in the kitchen, the more likely a repeat of Gemini 1’s rollout, which was a mess [0].
Basically I’m looking to see that Google cares about the meta-level user experience of finding, understanding, and using its products, and scattering key usage details around the internet is not a good sign. It suggests deeper process problems if a simple issue like this either didn’t get noticed or can’t get fixed.
[US jurisdiction]: Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone.
Anything in the result written by a human can be, and if it was all emitted by the LLM then that portion originally written by a human carries its own copyright.
As a work of an LLM, the entirety presumably can not be copyright, at all. Portions written by humans presumably carry their original copyright.