Oh well. I’m too used to the “/s” for recognising sarcasm.

Genuine? Almost all his arguments are strawman and he contradicts himself constantly.

One way I could see this being enforced is by mandating that AI models not respond to questions that could result in speaking about a copyrighted work. Similar to how mainstream models don’t speak about vulgar or controversial topics.

But yeah, realistically, it’s unlikely that any judge would rule in that favour.

“I’m the motherfucking protagonist, bitch.”

Alsup? Is this the same judge who also presided over Oracle v. Google over the use of Java in Android? That guy really does his homework over cases he presides on, he learned how to code to see if APIs are copyrightable.

As for the ruling, I’m not in favour of AI training on copyrighted material, but I can see where the judgement is coming from. I think it’s a matter of what’s really copyrightable: the actual text or images or the abstract knowledge in the material. In other words, if you were to read a book and then write a summary of a section of it in your own words or orally described what you learned from the book to someone else, does that mean copyright infringement? Or if you watch a movie and then describe your favourite scenes to your friends?

Perhaps a case could be made that AI training on copyrighted materials is not the same as humans consuming the copyrighted material and therefore it should have a different provision in copyright law. I’m no lawyer, but I’d assume that current copyright law works on the basis that humans do not generally have perfect recall of the copyrighted material they consume. But then again a counter argument could be that neither does the AI due to its tendency to hallucinate sometimes. However, it still has superior recall compared to humans and perhaps could be the grounds for amending copyright law about AI training?

That’s what I meant. Microsoft created the Office Open XML format as an open standard, but they don’t follow their own standard and make their “extended” version of the standard as the default.

Other Office suites like Libre Office support this format via strict mode, which is not selected by default when you save these files using the Microsoft Office suite.

Technically even Google does this with Chrome: Open standard JS but they also use custom components, sites that use these components break on other browsers.

Xlsx is actually an open standard, but only if you use strict mode, which Microsoft conveniently does not make the default option when saving. You have to choose it explicitly when saving.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

I think I need to clear a common misconception people seem to have here: Oracle has very little to do with Java.

At most, Oracle has the following connection to Java:

• Own the trademark
• Have a build of the JDK/JRE with commercial support.

However, Java as a language’s baseline comes from OpenJDK, an open source (GPL 2.0) community project which is upstream to several builds including Oracle’s JVM. It follows a “bazaar” like development model similar to the Linux kernel where you can see their mailing lists and track what’s being worked on. Anyone can contribute and the code is on Github: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk.

That being said, you don’t even need to use Oracle’s JDK (it sucks IMO) and use one of the community provided builds of OpenJDK. OpenJDK builds are provided by Eclipse, Amazon, Azul, Bellsoft and even Microsoft provides JDK/JRE builds. These are free of cost and have longer term support than Oracle’s offering.

Everyone knows it’s Alice. Duh!

Then you take Clonazepam to take the edge off.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

People have been navigating with physical maps a lot longer than smart phones.

Or use Open Street Map

Nothing. Perhaps wean yourselves away from it.

There is a simple solution: stop using Android Auto.

Tim Sweeney you mean?

The title reminds me of this https://xkcd.com/2584/

Shit come down

All your base are belong to us

You seem like someone who hasn’t really worked in software development.

Software engineering does not simply mean coding. A production grade software application goes through analysis, design, implementation (where coding happens), testing (several phases), release and maintenance. Not to mention infrastructure concerns (storage, databases, microservices, service orchestration, middleware, etc). The whole process is too nuanced and complex to conclude that AI would make the whole career obsolete. It might shake up some areas of software engineering but only a small part of it.

You’ll still need people to verify that the AI generated application actually behaves as per the business logic, runs optimally with the hardware you have and scales as your business grows. Which means engineers for testing and reviewing the generated code plus engineers to setup the infrastructure where the application will run.

Adam Something, is that you?