That's why any repo with a README ridden with emojis (and other telltale signs) is just an instant nope nowadays.
(One of the only good things about GH is, that if you block some account, it will tell you if that account contributed to some repo at the top. Makes it very easy to filter out slopcode.)
Right, because LLMs aren't spitting out textbooks verbatim, or at least are vaguely adding safeguards against it. The students aren't being sued for ingesting pirated books, they're getting sued for sharing them.
>The Rights Alliance confirmed it will begin filing civil lawsuits against individual students who are caught sharing even a single digital textbook.
>because LLMs aren't spitting out textbooks verbatim
Except that via the right prompt injections, some LLMs were caught they could spit out chapters of LoTR or Harry Potter 90% verbatim.
Safeguards LLMs implemented to prevent the output from being verbatim and to be considered legally transformative, are not legitimizing the IP theft, they're just covering it up, kind of like evidence spoliation.
But that's just my opinion, the courts will have to decide this one.
>Safeguards LLMs implemented to prevent the output from being verbatim and to be considered legally transformative, are not legitimizing the IP theft, they're just covering it up, kind of like evidence spoliation.
Is it also "evidence spoliation" for Google Books to resist attempts to dumping out all pages of a book?
1. Not all LLMs were trained on illegally obtained books, and there's at least one court case where the use of illegal obtained books has been ruled illegal (exact sanctions are TBD)
2. In the context of discussing LLMs or students illegally distributing books, whether they obtained it legally is irrelevant. If you bought a book legally, that still doesn't give you the right to photocopy it and send to your friends.
Do they? Isn’t the application of the license its enforcement?
It’s illegal to commit fraud or murder, but if you do it and suffer no consequences (perhaps you even get pardoned by your president), does it matter that it was illegal? Laws are as strong as their enforcement.
For a less grim and more explicit example, Apple has a policy on the iOS App Store that apps may not use notifications to advertise. Yet it happens all the time, especially from big players like Uber. Apple themselves have done it too. So if you’re a bad actor and disrespectful to your users, does it matter that the rule exists?
Licenses determine the outcome of copyright lawsuits. If there's no copyright lawsuit, nobody looks at the license.
Licenses determine whether a copyright lawsuit is likely to happen. Most entities won't sue you if they expect to lose. But they are not the only deciding factor. Some entities never sue, which means you don't have to follow their licenses.
Sometimes they don't sue because they don't think they can prove you infringed copyright, even if you did. Even if AI is found to be copyright infringement in general, that won't mean every output is a copyright infringement of every input. Writing C code wouldn't be copyright infringement of Harry Potter. The entity suing you would still have to prove that you infringed.
Is it? Just tried it in Safari, Firefox and Chrome on a iPhone 12 Mini and I can read all the text? Obviously it isn't formatted, as it's raw markdown, just like what parent's recommended 3rd party platform does, but nothing is cut off or missing for me.
Actually, trying to load that previous platform on my phone makes it worse for readability, seems there is ~10% less width and not as efficient use of vertical space. Together with both being unformatted markdown, I think the raw GitHub URL seems to render better on mobile, at least small ones like my mini.
I used to think this, until I tried it. Now I see that it effectively removes all the tedium while still letting you have whatever level of creative control you want over the output.
Just imagine that instead of having to work off of an amorphous draft in your head, it really creates the draft right in front of you in actual code. You can still shape and craft and refine it just the same, but now you have tons more working memory free to use for the actually meaningful parts of the problem.
And, you're way less burdened by analysis paralysis. Instead of running in circles thinking about how you want to implement something, you can just try it both ways. There's no sunk cost of picking the wrong approach because it's practically instantaneous.
Sure, and that goes even for myself. Like for example, on some projects maybe I'll be more interested in exploring a particular architectural choice than actually focusing on the details of the feature. It ultimately doesn't matter, the point is that you can choose where to spend your attention, instead of being forced to always go through all the motions even for things that are just irrelevant boilerplate
Fortunately, at least in Europe, there are definitely companies still around who either don't force the usage of slop machines or even have a culture of rejecting them completely (yes, that's a thing, and I'm glad to be working at such a company).
Not really anymore. Wine, Proton, VK3D, .. have improved so much that the native gaming experience on Linux is more than viable. The Steam Deck might be the best example of that.
I'm very happy that the last few years I didn't have to keep a horrid Windows install around, just to play a game every now and then.
I'm pretty excited for linux gaming, and it really does seem to work well for singleplayer games. But online games (with anticheat, Valorant for example) often times don't run at all.
(One of the only good things about GH is, that if you block some account, it will tell you if that account contributed to some repo at the top. Makes it very easy to filter out slopcode.)