Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A
Posts
4
Comments
879
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • "It's not..."

    "There are probably law firms..."

  • This is wild unfounded speculation.

  • P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

    As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

    They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

    It's just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

  • This hasn't happened. It's a fantasy.

    Maybe you don't understand copyright?

  • Yeah - it's well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

    People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just "this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe".

    The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

    They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no "copyright fig leaf" apologia.

    It's code puritanism plain and simple. "We don't like these things so we're banning them."

  • People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.

    So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.

    This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn't really address the concerns they've raised directly. It's just apologetics to make it sound like it's reason-based rather than "we don't like it".

    It's their platform, they can do what they want, but let's not pretend it's not code-puritanism.

  • At the very least it's a mistake to say the law is "settled" at all. It's barely been tested.

  • Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms "slop" and "vibe" to poison the well.

  • Restic will compress as well.

  • Why don't you think it's not happening? Do you think headlines are the best way to determine what's happening in the world?

  • And it's not "news" in the same way that "I drove to work today without incident" doesn't make headlines.

  • You could just install dovecot and search over imap or pop3 from any email client.

  • This wasn't a "lie to children" - that's a simplification. This was like explaining the Pythagorean theorem by introducing imaginary numbers.

    Almost nobody ever uses hex to represent IP addresses ever. There is no reason to bring up hex. It complicates things rather than simplifies.

    And to say "[t]hey are actually hex numbers from 0 to FF" is just misleading to the point of wrong. Numbers are not "hex" or "base 10" or "binary". They're numbers. We only represent them as hex or base10. They aren't "different numbers".

    And in this case we almost always use base10. SO WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HEX?

  • I mean - they are "numbers". Numbers are not in hex or decimal. Saying "they're really hex numbers" is not just wrong it's kinda meaningless since ff == 255.

    You've explained it badly.

  • The "." are just separators. Each segment is a number from 0-255 (1 byte). So you hold three segments static (e.g. 10.10.10.x) and then increment the last segment from 0-255 (so 10.10.10.0 -> 10.10.10.255). Then the next segment increments (10.10.11.0 -> 10.10.11.255).

  • You think introducing hex was clarifying?

  • They're not "actually hex". Hex is just a representation. Same as base 10.

  • There's no such thing as "Grade D" meat.

  • What? So somebody ordering a side salad when they go out to dinner must be catastrophic then?