> There's no point maintaining the illusion that we're soliciting feedback or discussion on the issues tracker when we are not.
You could have just said this (maybe you did when linking the code of conduct) instead of writing a paragraph of confrontational arguments and it would have looked way better imho.
> You may think it hyperbolic but drive-by negativity by non-code-contributor users is the biggest existential risk to projects like Homebrew.
If this was true every oss project would either be dead or be entirely comprised of dicks, neither of which are the case.
Yup, you're right, I should have. We will adjust the CONTRIBUTING.md accordingly.
> If this was true every oss project would either be dead or be entirely comprised of dicks, neither of which are the case.
I didn't say every OSS project, I said projects like Homebrew. I know that Homebrew would be dead without many of my personal interventions. You can believe me or not but, unless you're a Homebrew maintainer, it's unlikely your opinion about what happens behind the scenes is informed.
A human leg isn't designed to be repaired from the outside, it doesn't need replacement parts, it doesn't need external maintenance. It's designed around the maintenance and repair procedures of the human body which are able to fix it in situ and produce new parts on the fly. That allows it to have more freedom of design than a mechanical part that needs to be made from standardized parts in order to be serviced and manufactured.
The limitation is not cognitive, it's a matter of efficiency. We could, if we wanted to, make a lamp with all custom parts with the maximum efficiency possible in the design, but those efficiency gains would be at the cost of extremely difficult manufacturing. It's a tradeoff that the human body can make because it needs to produce only one (or two) legs, while us humans mass manufacture the stuff we make.
On one hand it's true, on the other people want stability in their jobs. You need a compromise between flexibility for the employer and stability for the employee, and one such compromise (in this area) is having a consulting company whose contract with the client can be easily terminated, while keeping the actual people doing the work with a job and stable income.
We don't know what LLMs encode because we don't know what the model weights represent.
On the second point it depends how the models were made to reporduce text verbatim. If i copy-paste someone's article in MS word i technically made word reproduce the text verbatim., obviously that's not Word's fault. If i asked an LLM explicitly to list the entire Bee Movie script it would probably do it, which means it was trained on it, but that's through a direct and clear request to copy the original verbatim.
> If i copy-paste someone's article in MS word i technically made word reproduce the text verbatim., obviously that's not Word's fault. If i asked an LLM explicitly to list the entire Bee Movie script it would probably do it, which means it was trained on it, but that's through a direct and clear request to copy the original verbatim.
But that clearly means that the LLM already has the Bee Movie script inside it (somehow), which would be a copyright violation. If MS word came with an "open movie script" button that let you pick a movie and get the script for it, that would clearly be a copyright violation. Of course if the user inputs something then that's different - that's not the software shipping whatever it is.
> If i asked an LLM explicitly to list the entire Bee Movie script it would probably do it, which means it was trained on it, but that's through a direct and clear request to copy the original verbatim.
Huh? The "request" part doesn't matter. What you describe is exactly like if someone ships me a hard drive with a file containing "the entire Bee Movie script" that they were not authorized to copy: it's copyright infringement before and after I request the disk to read out the blocks with the file.
It wouldn't amplify them, there's no energy gain. A gravitational lenses just bends the trajectory of the waves. If you do it right it may be possible to use that to focus the signal on a directional trajectory(as in, the same energy is redirected in a single direction instead of being spread out), if I'm not mistaken.
To add to what other people said: we're talking about criminal trials, here "on average" isn't enough. Criminal procedure requires such a high standard of certainty(proving without a reasonable doubt, unanimity of jurors) because unlike civil trials it actually sends people to jail. So being right "on average" isn't enough because we can't afford to punish innocent people, we would rather not punish a guilty person than wrongfully punish an innocent one.
If there were no patents most of them would just be kept as secrets, and you would, for the most part, get right back where you started(if not in a worse position)
What you're talking about is a very specific area of patent law: Patents on manufacturing processes. The assumption is that without the patent the knowledge necessary to reproduce the products made with the method would be extremely difficult or impossible. This is nonsense in this day and age.
Modern engineers of varying sorts can reverse engineer basically any process and underpaid employees who know the secrets can be easily poached. Therefore, the entire concept of patents existing for the sake of disclosure falls flat on its face.
> Modern engineers of varying sorts can reverse engineer basically any process
This is in part because they are steeped in a society where essentially all innovations are published, and have been for hundreds of years. This would not be the case if each engineer could only draw on a single career's worth of exposure to actual practices.
