The Home/Personal edition of Mathematica is for non-commercial use only although it's a paid subscription. The world around you is not bound by your ignorance.
If you have an NVIDIA GPU CachyOS performs significantly better at the moment, so I would go with that. For AMD GPUs it's more of a preference question.
Personally for dev work I tend to use things like Nix to keep the development packages out of the host, that sort of approach works regardless of distro.
> Do note that they make it very, very, very clear that their results are preliminary,
Yeah, I'm not entirely convinced some of the results they're seeing aren't caused by their methodology. I don't think they are either.
I moved a gaming pc with a 4070Ti from Win10 to Cachy 3 weeks ago and have been purposefully testing out various games to see if it's workable; I'm about 50 hours and 15 games deep now and the only thing that doesn't work reliably is HDR. Outside of that I haven't run into any issues I haven't seen on Windows as well.
I use mine every time I take the dog out for a walk so around 2 hours a day most days since I've had them which is over 2 years now, and I've yet to notice any battery degradation. There probably is some, but not enough to notice outside of actual measurements.
that’s a big debate beyond the scope of this format but they at least should need to pass a law first before just taking power, otherwise you risk a situation where any time someone wants power they declare an emergency, or worse, cause one… imagine if they released a virus for example, knowing they can then shut down a society for whatever reason? it’s a real threat and shouldn’t be hand waved away in a time when powerful people openly claim the biggest threat to everyone is everyone
Lots of things are bad for the well being of the people but the government allows it, such as smoking and drinking. The government serves the will of the people, not their well being.
I think the mercurial log is not doing us any favors here, most of the first few pages is the history of the `quic` http/3 support branch which indeed Maxim is not working on. Scroll past it and he'll be much more prevalent.
See for example the log of stable-1.24: https://freenginx.org/hg/nginx/shortlog/420f96a6f7ac
Don't think Source ever won out, Global Offensive was the game to dethrone 1.6. At least in our "semi-professional" neck of the woods CS:S adoption was 30% at best. A clear majority were still playing 1.6 even when Global Offensive came out, and even then it took a year or two of updates to make that game good enough to start convincing significant portions of people to switch over.
For example in 2011 Electronic Sports World Cup just before Global Offensive came out 1.6 still had a significantly larger price pool than CS:S. Funnily it was also the first and last ESWC to even have a CS:S tournament, even though the game had been out for 7 years at that point.
Cool. Thanks for the history. I fell off CS except for occasional casual sundays and dove head first into MMO land around that time so it's all rather fuzzy. I kinda forgot Global Offensive was it's own release.
This is literally what the AI does as well. It didn't walk into a bookstore and steal all the books off the shelf, it read through material made available to it entirely legally.
The thing that authors are trying to argue here is that they should get to control what type of entity should be allowed to view the work they purchased. It's the same as going "you bought my book, but now that I know you're a communist, I think the courts should ban you from reading it".
> they should get to control what type of entity should be allowed to view the work they purchased
No, that's not it. It's more like if I memorized a bunch of pop-songs, then performed a composition of my own whose second verse was a straight lift of a song by Madonna. I would owe her performance royalties. And I would be obliged to reproduce her copyright notice, so that my audience would know that if they pull the same stunt, they're on the hook for royalties too.
There are lots of people arguing against the training itself. And people arguing against all outputs, even when there is no detectable copying. I don't know how you missed those takes. You're arguing the wrong point here. Many people do want to say "no ai can look".
Only if you released it. You could definitely perform it in the shower without owing anything. And the 99% of your compositions that didn't wholesale mirror any specific song would be perfectly fine to release.
Now, moving from holding the model creator culpable to the user would obviously be problematic as well, since they have no way of knowing whether the output is novel or a copy paste. Some sort of filter would seem to be the solution, it should disregard output that exactly or almost exactly matches any input.
But it's not humans reading it, it's using it to train ML models. There are similarities between humans learning from books and ML models being trained on it, but there are also salient differences, and those differences lead to concerns. E.g., I am concerned about these large tech companies being the gatekeepers of AI models, and I would rather see the beneficiaries and owners of these models also be the many millions or billions of content creators who first made them possible.
It's not obvious to me that the implicit permission we've been granting for humans to view our content for free also means that we've given permission for AI models to be trained on that data. You don't automatically have the right to take my content and do whatever you like with it.
I have a small inconsequential blog. I intended to make that material available for people to read for free, but I did not have (but should have had!) the foresight to think that companies would take my content, store it somewhere else, and use it for training their models.
At some point I'll be putting up an explicit message on my blog denying permission to use for ML training purposes, unless the model being trained is some appropriately open-sourced and available model that benefits everyone.
> You don't automatically have the right to take my content and do whatever you like with it.
actually you don't have the right to restrict the content, except as part of what's allowed in copyright law (those rights a spelt out - like distribution, broadcasting publicly, making derivative works).
specifically, you cannot have the right to restrict me from reading the works, and learning from it.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario - i bought your book, and counted the words and letters to compile some sort of index/table, and published that. Not a very interesting work, but it is transformative, and thus, you do not own copyright to my index/table. You cannot even prevent me from doing the counting and publishing.
The section titled "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works".
There are 6 rights.
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
> It didn't walk into a bookstore and steal all the books off the shelf, it read through material made available to it entirely legally.
Github ignored the licenses of countless repos and simply took everything posted publicly for training. They didn't care whether it was available to them entirely legally, they just pretended that copyright doesn't exist for them.
Nope,
public repos have license, often open source licenses that state that you can freely use the code, or change it , but only if the resulting product will also be opensource.
Other licenses such as the MIT license require that you name the original creator.
You don't need to accept that license to download and read the code.
A license allows new uses that copyright would otherwise block. Some kinds of AI training are fully local and don't make the AI into a derivative work, so they don't need any attribution and you don't need to accept the license to distribute.
But no license (that I'm aware of) says "You are allowed to read this source code, but you may not produce work as a result of learning from it"; for a start, that would clearly be impractical to enforce.
My understanding was that `revanced-patches` contained just that: patches. The patches themselves are applied to the target apps on the end user device, so revanced doesn't need to host prepatched binaries that they don't own the copyright to.
Other moral or legal issues aside, this is a pretty clear abuse of the DMCA as far as I understand it.
In the 90s/00s it was often referred to as 'miukumauku' in Finnish, roughly translates as 'meowmeow', as in the sound a cat makes, since it somewhat looks like a sleeping cat.
reply