I'm very certain that this is not fraud, across multiple legal systems, both roman and common law. In both cases fraud requires a person is deprived of a material good. Neither the defrauded person or their material loss is present in this case. Maybe there is a oddball legal system somewhere in the world where fraud is something entirely different, but i doubt it. "Fraud", just like "Decorator Pattern" is a well established concept and pretty simple concept, even if there are edge cases. This does not fit at all.
In academia this is miss-attribution, outside of academia this does not exist.
This is clearly not not copyright infringement either as LLMs do not claim copyright, nor could they. Just like the photograph taken by the monkey, or pictures drawn by crows. LLM output is not a creative work either.
If this is unethical or immoral is a totaly different question. I really dont think so and I dont think you argue that position well.
It is misrepresentation for gain, that gain does not need to be monetary to be material. For example, it can be reputational.
It also is copyright infringement, because what the LLM “generates” are actually portions of its training set, which were covered by copyright. Just passing through an LLM does not remove that copyright from that work.
In German and French (roman) legal systems this is a "Vermögensdelikt", and explicitly about material damage and gain. Yes, common law can be more broad (in canada it isn't really, it just also includes service, btw.), and yet it clearly does not meet the definition, as there is a damaged/defraued party and fraudulent/gaining party. We are not talking about somebody usurping somebody else reputation, after all.
You misuse a technical term that is well established since antiquity.
You do not know what this word means. If you want to argue about semantics, look up the definition. This works especially well for legal terms as laws define them.
(That said, IANAL and there are very many different legal systems and I am not ruling out there exists one that is competently different - laws can be changed a will, after all.)
It is also obviously not copyright infringement, because this is simply not how copyright works, at all. I cannot and will explain of all copyright here. Instead I will point this out: Every code produced by a human who read copyrighted code would fall under your definition.
No, you are wrong. You are either willfully misunderstanding what I’m calling fraud, or you are misinformed as to what “material gain” means in many legal systems.
With respect to the former, “fraud” is a shorthand for “fraudulent misrepresentation,” which is what you’re doing when you take someone else’s IP and try to contribute it to a project without securing the right to do so. It can be read as implicit in the attempt to contribute to the project that you have secured this permission (or do not need to, because the work is original to you). Whether the code came out of an LLM or was copied from another project or Stack Overflow doesn’t matter, it’s that you’re misrepresenting the rights you have that’s the fraudulent part.
For the latter, I specifically pointed out that the gain from fraudulent misrepresentation need not be monetary. The gain can be reputational or any other sort of benefit. For example, someone pretending to a fictional person to gain access to a space they otherwise wouldn’t is still committing fraud.
Finally, you’re wrong about whether the output of an LLM infringes copyright of material in its training set. Just running a copyrighted work through an LLM does not remove the copyright on that work if reproduced by the LLM.
I think this is a meme in marketing departments, but not actually true.
For the longest time ICE car makers build cars that screamed "electric". They mostly where behind expectations. At that time the by far most successful EV brand was Tesla with the USP that their cars looked like cars, while the EV from the competition looked like video game asserts; the BMW EVs from that time where among the most ugly cars i have ever seen.
Now this has reversed. The current EVs from VW, Mercedes and BMW, Renault, Dacia, Fiat all look normal. The ordinary-looking BMW iX3 has a long waiting list since launch, VWs boring ID-cars are doing better than ever. Tesla has released the cybertruck that screams "electric" and is a sales disaster.
My personal conspiracy theory is that the ICE divisions wanted to prevent EVs cannibalizing their market and they pushed for ugliness or "differentiation".
People want cars to look like cars. This is tautologically true, but manufactures needed quite some time to figure that out.
This is historic. To put this into perspective for people how to not follow running: This is about about as big as "derGrobe" beating the one-minute-mark in 4b2c.
I disagree. The plug is usually part of an appliance connector cable, that has no idea what happens to be on the other side aswell. If you size that cable for the same current as the socket, the cable itself is protected by the circuit breaker.
The correct spot for the fuse is the appliance itself. Fuses used to be easily replaceable, often with fuse holders [1]. I have, however, never seen a computer with one.
There's simply never a reason for a user to replace a fuse in a properly designed device. If a fuse blows then it means something has gone horribly wrong and replacing the fuse won't fix it.
The exception would be a device that sends mains more-or-less directly to a user device, then a fuse would be protecting against a fault in the user device and should be replaceable. A lamp that takes a regular light bulb would be a good example of this.
True, but in that case the fuse only needs to be as easy to replace as whatever else you're replacing. If there's internal socketed components then the fuse only needs to be internal and socketed. If everything is soldered to a board then it's fine to have the fuse soldered too.
Many older appliances did expect the user to put some external bits in that would be across mains, or maybe across a transformer to mains, and in that case the fuse was just as replaceable as the user-provided part.
The fuse in the plug comes from a history of not wanting everything to blow up in the face of "I spilt my tea into the toaster". Very simple device, probably fine once it's dried out.
But really the value of having the fuse in the plug is that if it blows, the live wire in the cable is definitely disconnected all the way to the wall, so whatever has happened you know as best you can that it's not in a state where it could still get worse.
Most computer PSUs have a fuse inside, and it is quite easy to replace them.
I know because many moons ago I blew one, in the era when PSUs had a toggle between 120V and 230V, and I set it to 120V in a country that runs at 230V...
I feel like the humanoid form is getting in the way for that, and that a "Spot" like design with a hand on top is better suited for that. Also i think laundry and dishes are already 95% automated since about 50 years.
"Tech" was incredible light on CapExp compared with everything else (until AI hit, that is). That is what allowed its explosive growth. On the one hand alphabet is not used to that. On the other hand it is turning into a more normal business with more CapExp, and like other more "normal" business it uses more external investment. As a general rule of thumb: The more capex, the more leverage; for example commodity extraction, infrastructure or power generation are very capex heavy, and heavily leveraged.
Roads are not solving transportation, they are closer to a sophisticated trace track. Roads are a constrained Operational Design Domain:
- Geofenced areas
- pre-build structures
- Curated infrastructure
- fallback to gravel in times of the inevitable event of maintenance.
This is not general transportation, it is a highend infrastructure inside a controlled environment. The system degrades exactly where humans/horses do not: River crossings, Creeks, steep hillsides, marshes, beaches.
A river flooding a road is not and "edge case", it a usual occurrence, and a problem that roads do robustly solve. It works due to extensive maintenance, not because the asphalt can actually deal with water.
Scaling that beyond a few mapped US suburbs into Europe is a totally different problem. Dont get fooled by Wall Street stock pumping.
Asphalt is not marketed as Level 5 intelligence. You can make analogies but that is very different from a rebuttal...that you did not do. The hard part is still unstructured human chaos. Time will prove which one of us is right.
The interview started with the most mundane question "Who are you?", and the very first sentence of Wales is either a lie or misleading. The journalists asks for clarification (thats a journalists job, btw), and in his second sentence of the interview Wales insults the journalist. I'm pretty sure who is the jerk here.
It also was Wales who bought up the topic, not the journalist. If he considers it a stupid topic he does not want to talk about, why is it the very first thing he talks about?
Sanger was originally hired to edit Nupedia, a web encyclopedia project with a strict peer review process, and only worked for Wales for about a year. Wikipedia was started as a side project (with Sanger contributing to the concept and some early organizing), but Wikipedia quickly became much more successful while Nupedia basically never got off the ground. My impression is that Sanger wanted to impose his own vision on Wikipedia, but couldn't because the community of volunteer editors disagreed, and when Wales stopped paying him as a full time Nupedia editor (Wales's company was tight on cash at that time), he stopped any involvement. This was long before most of the actual work of Wikipedia happened, and that should have been the end of the story.
But ever since, Sanger has been trash talking Wikipedia as a project and community ("broken beyond repair") and trying to undermine it. A few years later he started a competing project (which was predictably a total failure). For two decades he has been promoting himself as "cofounder of Wikipedia". Interviewer after interviewer asks the same lazy questions about the subject, without ever adding any new insight. (You can see that Sanger's ghost is chasing Wikipedia even into this discussion.)
It's beating a dead horse, and entirely off the topic of what the interview was supposed to be about. Answering the question clearly and accurately takes a lot of time and finesse, which is wasted on the interviewer and most of the audience. Wales clearly screwed up in that interview, but it's not hard to see where he's coming from, psychologically.
What an interview!
I had never seen this clip before, it's really something. Facts and context are important for sure, but as someone who isn't clued in on the Sanger drama, Wales could not possibly have made himself look worse. And in under a minute!
As you said, the interviewer is in the right, carrying out the job of interviewing, by pushing Wales as he did. To call him a "jerk" is silly, I think.
>(This is probably because Google Maps can be used for walking/biking too)
Please don't do that. The map is simply not good enough and does not have enough context (road quality, terrain, trail difficulty) for anything but very causal activity. Even then I highly recommend to use a proper map, electronic or paper.
It has a lot more map data accessible and you can even overlay National Park Service maps, land ownership, accurate cell service grids, mountain biking trails, weather conditions and things like that.
Disclaimer: Just because you see a route on a map, digital or paper, does not mean it is passable today. Or it may be passable but at an extremely arduous pace.
We used the walking directions for dual sport motorcycles once. It was pretty nice. We did have a few places where it became sketchy. Those and maybe more places would be sketchy for walking too. Not that google maps could do much about it. Terrain is a living thing. These were mostly huge cracks in the earth due to rain water.
Trail? Terrain? I use it for walking for 10-20mins around a (mostly flat) city and I expect that’s what 90% of people use it for, the comment didn’t mention hiking
It depends what you are doing but for hill walking in Italy I found the footpathapp.com app good. There are no decent paper maps in the area I go and Google maps are also rubbish for local paths but the app kind of draws in paths based on satellite images I think and you can draw on it to mark the ones you've been on.
In academia this is miss-attribution, outside of academia this does not exist.
This is clearly not not copyright infringement either as LLMs do not claim copyright, nor could they. Just like the photograph taken by the monkey, or pictures drawn by crows. LLM output is not a creative work either.
If this is unethical or immoral is a totaly different question. I really dont think so and I dont think you argue that position well.
reply