Yeah, they have to fight it tooth and nail, because it threatens how they want to do business on a conceptual level. But I also cannot see how they would argue this case.
If another webpage said those publishers are a right cunt (written by AI), that would be defamation for sure. So far, Google was allowed to say those publishers are a right cunt, because they were quoting another webpage.If they're not doing that anymore, if they're not even paraphrasing what another webpage said, but just making own claims, then that's their own responsibility.
In theory, I could imagine a ruling that says that paraphrasing doesn't have to be accurate at all times, but in practice, this would be absolute bedlam. Any webpage could publish the wildest misinformation and just say that, oops, they were paraphrasing.So, even if they can get such ruling through, there would need to be law changes sooner or later, which explicitly make it illegal again.
Yeah, I find it difficult, too, especially since management hasn't caught onto this yet and still wants me to specialize.And of course, the answer is that I should specialize in AI, because there's currently a lot of new development happening there. But that knowledge is also getting obsolete by the minute, with ever more tools coming out and then again other tools that operate those tools for you.
The one thing I hold onto, is that no matter how the situation evolves, the basic job requirements for software engineering, i.e. being smart and being able to learn quickly, will always be an advantage.I don't think it's possible to hold onto the confort zone from before, even if the industry implodes from the AI costs becoming transparent. But yeah, I do think we'll land on our feet in one way or another.
Interesting that you guys associate guitar solos with feeling like a knight. For me, it's brass and choirs and such.
Something like this, for example: https://www.jamendo.com/track/1244744/swords-of-fireThe bass trombone sizzling throughout that song apparently got developed in the late 16th century, so technically not even that is anachronistic. 🙃
Did not expect that kind of law change from such an aggressively Conservative government. I guess, there is ample reason to put the NIMBYs into overdrive, though...
I do feel like AI art has entered the boomer stage of the hype cycle, as in Trump et al use it prominently, so the kids start to think, it's
.
But I also feel like the blog post conflates two aspects. It's not just about AI art, it's also about every goddamn brainfart being turned into AI art.No one needs to see a t-rex giving a thumbs-up or similar.
That's what people are tired of, for sure. In the before times, the person would've chuckled at the thought and then forgotten about it. It took long enough to create an image of it, that they had time to realize that no one cares.That barrier is now removed, so you definitely see posts online with just the dumbest brainfart turned into pixels.
I had to start reading that three times over, because I saw they mentioned "Canadian" and just assumed the angle brackets are a joke in reference to the Canadians in South Park:
Not sure, if you're actually looking for an explanation or rather just want to rant and/or hope for dating tips, but maybe still helpful to be aware of:
With your specific expectations, you're somewhere to the far left or far right, whichever way you want to read it.For example, this graph could be applied to alcohol consumption, with 0 on the left and lots on the right. Then you're on the far left.
The Y-axis shows how many people exist in that range. There's some median alcohol consumption, which is going to be in the center of this diagram, where most people are. At 0 alcohol consumption, there's very few people, because it's an extreme.
Obviously, this simplifies a lot. In a real survey, there's probably actually somewhat of a bump at 0 alcohol, because certain religions prohibit consumption.But yeah, in general, you're hoping for relatively many extremes, so the number of people that match that are quite low. You will naturally get magnitudes more romantic interest from Average Joes, because there's just magnitudes more of them.
As somebody else already said, try to find groups that naturally attract folks from the extremes that you look for, like outdoor sports groups.Online dating, as problematic as it is, can also be rather good at finding very specific extremes.
You can't generally just add license terms to an open-source license. At that point, it is not anymore an open-source license, but rather your own custom (a.k.a. proprietary) license.
As in, there's a list of license texts that are approved by the Open Source Initiative and you don't really want to deviate from that. (There's also a list by the Free Software Foundation for the more freedom-loving among us, which is rather similar and also valid.)
This also has larger legal implications. There's been lawsuits for open-source licenses, to which you can point and tell a company to fuck off, if they do a similar violation. As soon as you start adding own terms, there can be contradictions and just generally surface to attack.
In particular also, most code exists in the form of libraries. If you're a library and you want users, you do want to stick to the well-known licenses, because no one wants to deal with each library having different custom terms (considering you can easily end up using hundreds of libraries in an application).
The old "tomatoes are not a vegetable" is pretty frustrating. They are a vegetable.
In botanical terms, the concept of a vegetable does not exist, which is where tomatoes are classified as fruits. But in culinary terms, vegetables do exist and tomatoes are classified as such.
I just find it frustrating, because I believed that garbage myself at some point, and I thought, I was smart for knowing that.Just one of those examples that you can easily spread misinformation, so long as you make it sound plausible.
Ah, that makes more sense. I did remember it being a Dutch acquisition.
Dutch cartographers subsequently renamed Tasman's discovery Nova Zeelandia from Latin, after the Dutch province of Zeeland. This name was later anglicised to New Zealand.
Yeah, they have to fight it tooth and nail, because it threatens how they want to do business on a conceptual level. But I also cannot see how they would argue this case.
If another webpage said those publishers are a right cunt (written by AI), that would be defamation for sure. So far, Google was allowed to say those publishers are a right cunt, because they were quoting another webpage.If they're not doing that anymore, if they're not even paraphrasing what another webpage said, but just making own claims, then that's their own responsibility.
In theory, I could imagine a ruling that says that paraphrasing doesn't have to be accurate at all times, but in practice, this would be absolute bedlam. Any webpage could publish the wildest misinformation and just say that, oops, they were paraphrasing.So, even if they can get such ruling through, there would need to be law changes sooner or later, which explicitly make it illegal again.