I'm sure a number of things are terribly wrong with the patent system. Amazon's one-click patent is another that comes to mind. Patents are for how, and the how there is "store the default payment and shipping info in a database".
I'm sure that some of these patents happen by slipping the examiner a few bands in the application paperwork. Afterwards it's on other people to defend themselves to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if they lose you can get an entire company and all of its IP, property, and money.
$5k under the table is a small price to pay for such potential payoff, not to mention the value of the chilling effect on competition.
It's unethical, seedy, shitty, banal, and pestilent, the kind of thing that only the most hellbound and soulless of sleazebags would ever even think of to do, but it's profitable.
How many patents do you have? Or are you just making assumptions and defaming people who could very well do an honest day's work? I assume the people at the US Patent Office go through thousands of patents, I would imagine it can get pretty exhausting reading each and every patent, especially after you ran through hundreds of unpatentable documents. You literally have to look up prior patents, and make sure its not already a thing, and figure out, is this really the same or not?
Funnily enough, one of my former bosses has one or two patents on something really simple that he came up with. It's a really clever piece of tech that the military uses, stupid simple to implement too.
Yes! As an optical engineer, I heard endless complaints about how the camera doesn't "see" like our eyes do.
Even the 1990s cameras were far superior to a "static picture" from our eyes: color everywhere, instead of mostly in the fovea, no blind spot, etc.
What they lacked was: higher resolution wherever you chose to concentrate within the scene at one moment, jagged lines if they weren't perfectly aligned (your eyes correct near-lines to be LINES), and (in the 1990s) lower peak resolution.
(Weirdly, people used to argue that "digital would NEVER have better resolution than film, even though it was clearly trending upwards to and past that static goal...).
> No bigger than the current black market for beer and cigs for kids.
I don't think this part is true. Kids are currently used to having access to all of these services. And there is a lot more utility to having access to the whole internet, than having a a few packs.
To say nothing of the fact that these codes can be distributed digitally once they have been purchased. So it's harder to deter.
The issue I have with the paper is that it seems (based on my skimming) that they did not pick developers who were already versed with AI tooling. So they're comparing (experienced dev working in the way they're comfortable) vs (experienced dev working with new tool for the first time and not having passed the productivity slump from onboarding).
The thing I find interesting is that there is trillions of dollars in valuations hinging upon this question and yet the appetite to spend a little bit of money to repeat this study and then release the results publicly is apparently very low.
It reminds me of global warming where on one side of the debate there some scientists with very little money running experiments and on the other side there were some ridiculously wealthy corporations publicly poking holes in those experiments but who secretly knew they were valid since the 1960s.
Yeah, it's kind of a Bayesian probability thing, where the impressiveness of either outcome depends on what we expected to happen by default.
1. There are bajillions of dollars in incentives for a study declaring "Insane Improvements", so we should expect a bunch to finish being funded, launched, and released... Yet we don't see many.
2. There is comparatively no money (and little fame) behind a study saying "This Is Hot Air", so even a few seem significant.
Longitudinal studies are definitely needed, but of course at the time the research for this paper was done there weren't any programmers experienced with AI assist out there yet.
I think LLMs have aggressively facilitated the rise of illiteracy in people attending software development university programs.
I think graduates of these programs are far, far worse software developers than they were in the recent past.
edit: i think you mean "irrelevant", not "irreverent". that being said, my response is an expansion of the point made in my comment that you replied to.
> I think LLMs have aggressively facilitated the rise of illiteracy in people attending software development university programs.
But this subthread is about interns who did not study CS, and are able to create advanced UIs using LLMs in the short time they had left to finish their project.
I'll start by saying that this seems irreverent to my previous comment.
That being said, I half agree but I think we see things differently. Based on what I've seen, the "illiterate" are those who would have otherwise dropped out or done a poor job previously. Now instead of exiting the field, or slowly shipping code they didn't understand (because that has always been a thing) they are shovelling more slop.
That's a problem, but it's at most gotten worse rather than come out of thin air.
But, there are still competent software engineers and I have seen with my own eyes how AI usage makes them more productive.
Similarly, some of those "illiterate" are those who now have the ability to make small apps for themselves to solve a problem they would not be able to before, and I argue that's a good thing.
Ultimately, people care about the solution to their problems, not the code. If (following the original anecdote) someone with an LLM can build a UI for their project I frankly don't think it matters whether they understood the code. The UI is there, it works, and they can get one with the thing that is actually important: using the UI for their bigger goal.
Why does it have jurisdiction? Israel has not ratified the Rome Treaty, and have stated they will not do so. Without that the ICC does not have legal jurisdiction over their actions.
Even if we had some legal theory under which ICC could assert universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, the ICC doesn't do so. It has to abide by its own jurisdiction rules, which have no such mechanism.
The ICC's jurisdictional claim is here is rather based on the idea that PA is the de facto government of Gaza, even though they never controlled it.
There is no such state as 'Palestine'. The PA is widely recognized and has acceded to the Rome Statute, but it has never held sovereignty in Gaza, making ICC's recognition of 'Palestine'--specifically including not only the West Bank but also Gaza and East Jerusalem--as a State Party under Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute dubious at best.
But really, it's not dubious at all: It's utterly absurd.
ICC claims that since PA claims to represent 'Palestine', and UNGA Resolution 67/19 "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967", and that since they consider Gaza "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" (despite the fact that Gaza has certainly not been occupied by Israel for decades and a completely separate entity exercises sovereignty there), therefore 'Palestine' is a State Party properly represented by the PA and covered by its accession to the Rome Statute, and thus the ICC totally have jurisdiction over Gaza.[0]
Bonkers.
Anyway Israel never acceded to the Rome Statute and the doctrine of state immunity applies. Even if PA were sovereign in Gaza and had properly delegated that sovereignty to the ICC, ICC's claim that Article 12(2)(a) grants them jurisdiction over Israel and Israeli leaders for their actions in Gaza is still a brazen claim to jurisdiction not well supported by customary international law.
reply