It really makes you think about those crazy internet folks from back in the day who thought copyright law was too strict and that restricting humanity to knowledge in such a way was holding us all back for the benefit of a tiny few.
I'm all for chopping up copyright law. But until we do so, companies like Meta need to be treated just like everyone else.
That means lawsuits, prison sentences, and millions in fines. And that's just the piracy part, there's also the lying/fraud part.
Interestingly, a Dutch LLM project was sent a cease and desist after the local copyright lobby caught wind of it being trained on a bunch of pirated eBooks. The case unfortunately wasn't fought out in court, because I would be very interested to see if this could make that copyright lobby take down ChatGPT and the other AI companies for doing the same.
The more concerning thing is that the best thing these overpaid people could come up with was.. download the torrent, like everyone else. Here you are, billions of resources, and no one is willing to spend a part of it to at least digitize some new data? Like even Google did?
I think they are morally required to improve the current state.
- Seed the torrent and publicly promote piracy pushing lawmakers.
- Contribute with digitisation and open access like Google did in the past.
- Make the part of their dataset that was pirated publicly accessible.
- Fight stupid copyright laws. I can't believe that copyright lasts more than 20 years. No field moves that slowly, and there should be tighter limits on faster moving fields.
Copyright and patent aren't the same thing. "Fast moving field" doesn't make sense in terms of copyrights. There's no reason the copywriter should last some minimum duration after the life of the creator.
If I write a really popular book, I don't want Hollywood to make it into a movie without compensating me just because they waited a few years
Fast moving field does make sense in terms of copyright because the knowledge is recorded in documents which are then copyrighted. E.g. research papers.
> If I write a really popular book, I don't want Hollywood to make it into a movie without compensating me just because they waited a few years
I genuinely don't understand this. Even at a decade copyright, pretty much anybody who was going to buy the book and read it has already done so. It costs you virtually nothing in sales, and society benefits from the resulting movie.
Your goal is to deprive everyone of having a movie, because someone who isn't you is going to make some money that was never going to you anyways? Your goals for copyright appear to be a net negative to the system that enforces copyright, which begs the question why should the system offer protection at all?
> Even at a decade copyright, pretty much anybody who was going to buy the book and read it has already done so. It costs you virtually nothing in sales, and society benefits from the resulting movie.
If the movie can be made then the book can be printed and sold by any publisher, under the current system. It creates a race to the bottom on the price of the book as soon as the copyright duration is done. Perhaps extending "fair use" stuff could allow one and not the other.
That race to the bottom is a feature, not a bug. It allows poor people to engage with culture. That's the tradeoff here. At some point copyright is protecting a tiny amount of profits for the author in exchange for locking people out of access.
Copyright is supposed to be a societal benefit, or there's little reason for society to spend money on enforcing it. That's where we currently are, and I think why there's such a strong reaction to copyright currently. We pay to protect the works and then we pay again to buy them. They become free when they're so culturally irrelevant that nobody wants them even for free. The costs of enforcement are socialized and the benefits are privatized.
At some point, copyright is going to have to provide more back to society or society will get tired of paying to enforce it.
Copywrite expiring in 20 years doesn't mean access is democratized. Publishers would likely keep the price the same, but instead is the author getting a cut, they just take everything.
Besides. The public isn't owed the fruits of my labor for free.
I honestly suspect fairly little would change. The US operates with a 20 year copyright for nearly 200 years, these long copyrights are actually far newer.
Also, you are not owed a monopoly on arrangement of words enforced by the public. There are plenty of other places to spend tax dollars.
Who do you think pays for prosecutors, lawyers, jails, and investigators going after pirating sites? DMCA claims are worth less than the paper they're printed on if not for the threat of all that.
This hasn't been my observation. Instead, I see a society where people regularly help and serve one other, frequently for free. Consider parents, social workers, most academics, food banks, charity in general, most workers in most businesses, et cetera. I wonder: who do you know and work with? A minority of people profit wonderfully off this. Incidentally, they seem to also preach principals that can only lead to the end of their gravy train.
You can counter by insisting that these "altruistic" behaviors are simply less directly but still in the altruist's interest. I would entirely agree.
I don't disagree with your point that, in life, not everybody is in it for themselves. But the examples you chose to demonstrate altruism are a bit ridiculous:
- parents: they wanted a child and now they have to take care of it, it's not a selfless act at all
- social workers: are paid to pretend to care. Often they genuinely do care, but this isn't altruism, it's a job
- most academics: I see you haven't met many academics. Altruistic (and selfless) are not terms I would use to describe them. The majority is very much in it for themselves...
- food banks, charity in general: very true, some charity do strive on unpaid volunteers, that is altruism
- most workers in most businesses: okay now you're getting ridiculous...
Many children are unwanted. Consider adoption and neglect. Parents know not to admit these things broadly.
Social work is a very low paid existence and most of the social workers I know could easily have earned more elsewhere which they are pained to know but persist through regardless because they care more for living in a world with less total suffering even at the cost of their own.
I earned my MSc from the University of Edinburgh and interacted thoroughly with academics there and in the process of getting there. I know many people with their PhDs and have had personal friendships with professors, postdocs, and other researchers. I would agree that academic incentive structure have been made deeply dysfunctional and delusion abounds. Also that defection is common. I have known some of those evil actors (e.g. Sharon Oviatt) so I don't deny their existence.
The very premise of business is that it takes a profit from the excess efforts of labor. I'm not the ridiculous sort that fails to recognize that often workers productivity is both made possible and enhanced by the accumulated coordination and structure of firms and owners should capture some of that value. However, increasingly research is showing that the advantages of our society are being captured by firms. Meanwhile, too many owners are failing to responsibly reinvest in the population and have made religions out of not fostering true growth.
My claim is that multiple cultural norms live side-by-side and I'm trying to help you and others realize that different options are plausible and more advantageous. The cooperators learn self preservation and hiding while they are also harvested while and beyond doing so. My speculation is that the expanded belief holding of perspectives like yours decreases the size of that population which will be a downward spiral of inefficiency and impoverishment. I expect the bottom will fall out viciously if it gets to that.
My spending time on this conversation is altruism, what is it for you?
Yep, you even see it on HN with artists and devs complaining about AI, especially when things like ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion were first announced. People who were pretty lax about copyright when it didn't affect them personally suddenly became copyright maximalists, talking about "stealing, theft, etc" Since then, people have calmed down and realized that AI is simply a tool like any other.
Also clicking explore does change the url to https://hollow-space.web.app/#0 but makes no visual difference. I have a feeling that quite a bit of the website is not working for me.
But what is the problem here? Isn’t open AI mission “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”? Sounds like success to me.
This is not mentioned nearly enough. I think it’s rooted in the idea that people must be either great or awful when being both is a very real possibility.
Another possibility is that being a good or bad are not inherent properties of people -- but only properties of actions. Bojack Horseman explains it well.
> That's the thing. I don't think I believe in deep down. I kinda think that all you are is just the things that you do.
and
> There's no such thing as "bad guys" or "good guys." We're all just...guys, who do good stuff sometimes and bad stuff sometimes. And all we can do is try to do less bad stuff and more good stuff [...]
This view too, is naive. There absolutely are bad guys. There absolutely are good guys. Bad people still occasionally do good things; Good people occasionally do bad things.
Fred Rogers was unquestionably a good guy. He still made mistakes, and was very upfront about this. He made mistakes from the bottom of his heart trying to do the right thing but not always having the information (or patience to gather and process) to make better decisions, but he absolutely always made decisions trying to, even when advancing his own interests, take others into account.
Unfortunately, there are people who make decisions always with the intent to hurt others. Many of the actions that they take are individually neutral or good. It's hard to get anything done if you don't do some cooperation in society. It's quite probable that even for the most awful people, if you count unweighted they've taken more good actions than bad - but the magnitude of their evil is much higher.
Most people are neither. Most people are stupid and selfish but trying not to do too much bad. Bojack gets this, but somewhat misses the other implication - that being good and bad is learned and practiced, and that you should learn from and practice the ways people who are Good at being Good people,
People will judge you as good or bad. I think that's the extent of my agreement. I'll use a common joke as my perspective here:
"I built bridges for 20 years and no one ever called me Joe the bridge builder, and I paved roads for 20 years and no one ever called me Joe the road paver. But I fucked one goat..."
Human judgement can be fickle and outright vain at times. If there's an idea of outright good or evil, I don't trust any human (let alone society) to cast a proper judgement as such.
Interesting perspective, and it's hard to disagree with the idea that there are people who are more outliers than some others on either end, which is just a natural result of any distribution, though I think another angle to this topic is how "good" and "bad" are always relative. Throughout human history, somebody who is regarded as a visionary, saint and savior by their own in-group might well be regarded as the biggest evil by another group of humans. Some simple examples would be somebody like Columbus or Genghis Khan. Those are extreme cases of course, but the same applies on various scales.
Solzhenitsyn had it right that we are all capable of good or bad actions:
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."
Don't wanna argue too deeply into philosophy. But I definitely think there is a certain moral code embedded in you by your early childhood. That moral compass on how you navigate life.
It's "deep down" but not some unchanging, inherent aspect of "you". You just need more work to tackle it, and probably with help, not alone.
But yes, "good" it "bad" absolutely doesn't work when evaluating a single individual life.
I don't think he intended Twitter to be a good financial investment. It seems like he bought it for its power in the public discourse. Whether or not that investment paid off is an exercise for the reader.
The failures of other electric car companies; Fisker Arrival, Dyson EV, Nikola, Faraday Future, would seem to indicate that being merely competent is a higher compliment than it feels like it would be.
His biographies go into far more detail than fit here, but even if you only believe half of those stories, he is still way more involved that most investors. At one point he slept in his office at the Fremont plant to get the Model 3 launched. There's more to him than being able to sign a check.
I have only one that I use all the time "rcheckout". Since I use gitlab and it allows the creation of branches with a title like "ISSUE_NR-ISSUE_TITLE" I can do git rcheckout ISSUE_NR and checkout that branch without having to type the full title. I don't know where I got this from originally.
#!/bin/bash
git fetch
[ ${#} -ne 1 ] && { echo -e "Please provide one search string" ; exit 1 ; }
MATCHES=( $(git branch -a --color=never | sed -E 's|^[* ] (remotes/origin/)?||' | sort -u | grep -E "^((feature|bugfix|release|hotfix)/)?([A-Z]+-[1-9][0-9]*-)?${1}") )
case ${#MATCHES[@]} in
( 0 ) echo "No branches matched '${1}'" ; exit 1 ;;
( 1 ) git checkout "${MATCHES[0]}" ; exit $? ;;
esac
echo "Ambiguous search '${1}'; returned ${#MATCHES[@]} matches:"
for ITEM in "${MATCHES[@]}" ; do
echo -e " ${ITEM}"
done
exit 1
I trying to create a management software for Integral Coops in Portugal. In a gross oversimplification Integral coops tend to be location based and allow freelancers and small groups to come together and have a infrastructure as if they were a big business while keeping their independence on the work they want to do
I'm trying to make it: a collective project shared between multiple coops, open source, sustainable in the long term.
I've already did some micro projects to the coop I'm a part of, like changing the workflow of expense invoice management from a totally manual process to an 80% automated process so I'm pretty sure I can provide significant benefits to the coops. Right now There's already a prototype andI'm in the process of talking with cooperatives finding financing and making it real.
website is at https://coops.pt (very early stages, in portuguese)
reply