It’s really not a euphemism. There will always be a language that’s the most common for international trade, diplomacy, travel, and general discourse.

It was not always English, even when Britain was at the peak of its empire.

It’s easy to claim that it’s role as the lingua franca is bolstered by the international position of the US and Britain over the past 150 ish years, but that doesn’t make it a euphemism.

I think it just stands out because you suddenly understand a word in a different context. When English does it it doesn’t stand out because it’s so riddled with words from different origins that basically any random mouth sound passes as a plausible English word.

I went to a cafe and perused the menu, but I didn’t see anything I liked, not even coffee, so I waltzed out and went to the gourmet delicatessen across the street where I got a Reuben with extra sauerkraut. Hard to say no to corned beef.
Afterwards I picked up the kid from kindergarten, and we picked a restaurant to go to. I wanted sushi, and they wanted tacos, so we compromised and got hamburgers.
We went home, took a shower with the new shampoo, got into our pajamas and read our favorite genre of story: macho poncho wearing jungle robots singing opera karaoke in a salsa tsunami.

We didn’t adopt the words to be cool, it just fit better. It’s hardly surprising that other languages would at least occasionally find one of ours useful in some mysterious way that words blend across languages.

It’s that, plus other factors. The regulations are more lenient, it’s easier to get a more efficient engine in with more mass to work with, it’s easier to pass safety ranking checks, and it’s easier to put comfort features in that consumers want.
Putting a large crumple zone on a compact isn’t as easy as putting one on a giant truck.
(Note this isn’t saying big cars are more or proportionally more efficient , but that the efficiency advances they’ve made over the years are easier to implement in a large engine)

You are correct, but I’m willing to give some leeway for using “unquestionable” as shorthand for “backed by such a remarkable corpus of evidence that for any contradictory hypothesis to seriously call it into question would require a literally unimaginable scope of evidence”.

I think germ theory and gravity are about the only ones I can readily think of. Not relativity based gravity, just… Gravity.

Why?

I use Linux. This means everyday I use software developed by Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, the US military and the NSA.

It doesn’t really matter who developed or contributed so much as who benefits.

I’m not sure that’s right. It’s not like they’re giving money to brave. The library itself isn’t tainted, and using it doesn’t benefit brave or the CEO.

Further, simply supporting a thing doesn’t make that thing a moral proxy for the supporter. That path leads to an infinite regress of bad moral choices with nothing being moral.

Whoah, I never said I wasn’t interested in the exchange, only that I wasn’t interested in the topic.
As someone who’s extremely insistent that it’s grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I’m shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you’re persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else’s point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there’s no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That’s abundantly clear.

My point is that you’re being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you’re directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.

I believe what they’re referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.

Because of the untested nature of the situation, it’s unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.

We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.

That actually makes security much, much worse. It’s training users to make authenticating part of their continuous routine, so when a random site that looks like the login page asks for their password you’re inclined to simply proceed, since diligence has an excessively big time cost.
Same goes for mfa. If validating every request, particularly if you use a service with push based mfa, takes too much effort then people just fulfill the request.

The ideal is that you only authenticate when it’s actually important, as an exceptional circumstance that makes the user pause and make sure things are good. Changing the bank account your pay gets sent to warrants an authentication.
“You’ve been using email for 20 minutes” doesn’t.

Realistically your session should probably be about the length of a workday with a little buffer for people who work a little longer to not end up with 99% of a session sitting open on their laptop. 9-10 hours should be fine.

You want the machine credentials that a laptop uses to talk to the mail server, or the hr software uses to talk to the doobips to have short credentials so if someone hacks the mail server they have a short window to use them, but that doesn’t impact user authentication requirements.

Obviously fake launch picture. Have you ever noticed that our images of rocket launches increase in quality at nearly the exact same rate that our ability to simulate smoke on graphics cards increases?

It’s like they’re not even trying.

This image seems to explain it.

Proton is the windows compatibility layer. Lepton is the android compatibility layer. FEX translates x86 (most desktop computers) applications to run on ARM (most mobile devices).

Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.

It’s not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it’s not the “rebellion” people want to make it out to be.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/2024_Reader_and_Donor_Experiences/Content_Discovery/Wikimania_2024,_"Written_by_AI"_How_do_editors_and_machines_collaborate_to_create_content

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries

It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it’s supposed to go. It’s not resistance, it’s all of them being on the same team and talking.

Eh, that’s not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn’t research, it’s just indicating what something is.

The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that’s representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.

It’s similar to the various charts and animations.

Yes, but…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download

That’s because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.

I don’t love an abstract legal identity. I’m capable of being happy with institutions, the culture composed if the people living there, and adoring the natural splendor.
Right now I’m actively angry at the institutions, a huge number of people have taken a sharp turn towards fascism, and I’ve got no problems with the forest still.
Me and the forest are cool, and that’s part of why I’m mad at the institutions.

I have no desire to live in the forest because, if nothing else, that’s not good for the forest. Then the people who opted to live there became insane, and decided to largely gut all of the institutions, and make it easier to destroy the forest.

“I live in a state of natural splendor, and I’m willing to fight to let you cut it down, splash me with mercury , and blot out the sun with smoke because I don’t have healthcare and fuck you for asking. It’s the refugees who are the problem”.

Oh my God, no. “Great place to live if you want you all your neighbors to be frighteningly conservative, the closest store to be a 30 minute drive, and the nearest hospital to be an hour away and shutting down because their public funding got cut”.

What countries have the word “America” in them? How many countries in the Americas are “united States”?
What do you call a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

For the record, The United States of America is the only country with the word America in it’s name. Our immediate neighbor, The United Mexican States, is another country you could, but no one would, plausibly call the United States.

The British isles contains two countries, Ireland and the UK. One of these is the home of the British, and the other would be much happier if you didn’t call them that.

Insisting that you not refer to the people of a country by the most unique name in the countries name, because the geographic region has that word in common is … Odd.