HexesofVexes

Necromancy necromancy necromancy.

Easy!

It works and is a pile of jank - Python

It doesn’t work and is a pile of jank - C++

You violated gods laws with how bad your code is and it still runs (right through the wall) - C

“Seek offence and you shall find it”

“Points at the smaller thing”

Every time I watch a student stall out on inequalities I ask “it’s the crocodile isn’t it?”. Without fail, they’ve got confused by it and as soon as they hear “points at the smaller thing” they have no issues.

I mean, it is. Everyone else just doesn’t get to see it!

deleted by creator

Ehh no, you genuinely can’t patent any form of mathematics.

Mathematics falls under “exists in nature” (if you are a Platonist) or “abstract ideas” (gets even clear thinking Constructivists). So they’re excluded from parents and copyrights no matter how complex the system

Textbooks usually belong to the publisher (academics commonly have to pirate their own papers), so that’s usually a bust.

You might be able to patent an algorithm associated with a branch of mathematics, but that’s trickier than you think. Blank slate development can, and does, happen (see Compaq’s reimplementation of IBM’s bios). You’re banking on it not being reversed engineer able (spoiler, don’t take that bet if you’ve published your proofs!).

I mean, the point was definitely stated as protecting creators. We’ve seen some solid David Vs Goliath stories of artists taking people who steal their work down.

However, this isn’t the reality for the majority of copyright. A lot of it just ties up works to companies owned by speculative shareholders (think of the lord of the rings).

Limits to duration would definitely help this, and we’d be on the same page there. However, I do still wonder if it shouldn’t be shorter for certain things (e.g. medical treatments or manufacturing), with the option of a public domain buyout to cover (reasonable, non-inflated) research costs.

My view is that of a scholar - one who does devote a large part of their life to freely creating and disseminating knowledge. I do indeed hold a strong bias here, one I’m happy to admit.

Much of the time, when I’ve run across copyright, it is rarely (if ever come to think of it) in the name of the author (a common requirement of journals being the giving up of ownership of one’s work). It normally falls to a company; one usually driven by shareholder value with little (if no) concern for the author’s rights. This tends to be the rule rather than the exception, and I’d argue that copyright in it’s current incarnation merely provides a legal avenue to steal the work of another, or hold to ransom their works from future generations. This contradicts the first point, and also the second (paywalled papers); indeed the lack of availability of academic works (created for free, or with public funding) is, I believe, a key driver of inequality in this world.

One can withold or even selectively share knowledge, and history will never know what that has cost us.

In terms of AI training, I wouldn’t say it is copyright infringement even in spirit, and I say this as one whose works are vomited out verbatim by LLMs when questioned about the field. The comparison with speaking is an interesting one, for we generally do try and attribute ideas if we hold the speaker in esteem, or feel their name will enhance our point. An AI, however, is not speaking of their own volition, but is instead acting in the interest of the company hosting them (and so would fall under the professional label rather than the personal). This might contradict your final point, if one assumes AI progresses as a subscription product (which looks likely).

I think your framework has merit, mostly because it is built on ideals (and we need more such thinking in the world); however, it does not quite match the observed data. Though, it does suggest the rules a better incarnation of copyright could adhere to.

More so, I think no-one has an issue with training publicly available models - it’s the ones under copyright themselves people are leery of.

Oh, that copyright is bollocks. If you follow its intent, you should be including academics, and that state of affairs would be abhorrent (we’d stagnate).

That’s rather the irony - mathematics takes a great deal of work and creativity. You can’t copyright mathematical work; but, put a set of lines together and shade in the polygons created and suddenly it becomes copyrightable. Somehow one is a creative work whose author requires protection, and the other is volunteered for involuntary public service.

The reason mathematics cannot be copyrighted: because it’s a “discovery”, rather than a “creation” (very much a point of view, and far from irrefutable fact). In mathematics, one should be aware, that the concept and it’s explanation (proof) are much the same thing.

All in all, the argument is either mathematical work should fall under copyright (an abhorrent idea), or copyright should be abolished as it rarely (if ever) does much good.

I mean, if we really are following the spirit of copyright, since no-one at open AI or other companies developed matrix and vector multiplication (operations existing in the public domain because Platonism is a thing).

Edit: oh my, I guess the consensus is that stealing the work of mathematicians is ok (or more, classifying our constructions as discoveries).

It’s all about probabilities.

Truth is proof, and the article contains no details to establish this absolutely. So, we are left with supposition.

This wasn’t an isolated man with nothing to live for - while his career in AI was over, he’d left it to pursue a moral agenda. Suicide is not likely until AFTER he testifies and discharged this.

The fact he supposedly had documents and a testimony that could heavily harm a company is enough to make it very likely his death was the cost of doing business - why pay a billion in a court case when you can pay a million for a professional hit?

On the balance of probabilities, it looks more likely to be like foul play. As they say, Epstein didn’t kill himself.

I mean, it sounds like a lawsuit to me.

1. A takedown request was issued on false grounds.

2. This takedown was then actioned without any due process.

3. The issue has caused tangible, and measurable, loss (calculable from prior sales records).

Honestly, there needs to be a fixed penalty fine for bad takedowns…

Sounds like the dream to me - no more funding applications!

You know, one wonders if all academic works should be released under “academic license”…

Might be nice to sting these big companies for our free labour.

I mean, with winter coming in, and universities not bothering to heat the building, teams turning my potato work laptop into a furnace is the only thing keeping us warm this winter…

Serious question - is their long term strategy bad optimisation to sell hardware? Do they have shares in intel or something?!?

We also need irrational fucks for the complex field don’t we?

Surprised Pikachu is much surprised.