MathML is technically human read/write-able, but not efficiently. Something like Mathjax (which targets mathml) is also necessary, to allow humans to read/write raw math expressions in a simpler format.
6,322 karma · joined December 9, 2011
https://www.reddit.com/r/truenas/comments/10lqofy/
[1] Part of the firmware on AMD systems, that brings up core system components. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGESA
If you had good enough SATs, you can often get full scholarships to your state's public universities. Other states' schools as well, although to a lesser degree—it would be more selective, like scholarships for private schools, since public colleges obviously prefer to subsidize their own states' residents over others, given equal test scores.
Copyright is not about consent to use. It's about consent to copy.
You're confusing copyright with licensing, where, for instance, I pay amazon to contractually license me an electronic copy of a book.
AI companies did not enter into and then violate contracts with anyone for the material they used to train. Some of them may have run afoul of ordinary copyright law to acquire the content in the first place.[1] Even supposing they did, that act is the violation; it wouldn't subsequently be an additional violation to train an AI using those works, instead of keeping the works around on a storage array, as long as it wasn't redistributed.
The alternative to AI models currently at issue—created by OpenAI Midjourney StabilityAI Meta Alphabet et al from a corpus of partly openly available content and partly content of dubious provenance—is not some license scheme where creators get compensated equitably. The real alternative is for companies like Disney and Adobe and book publishers and record labels to band together and have their own paywalled AI models and extract rent from that forever, which would still be sufficient to saturate the market for imagined content, and would still kill demand for everyone else's work.
[1] I'm skeptical, though open-minded, about this. I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits, or any lawsuits at all, targeting defendants who only downloaded copyrighted content from pirate sources, as long as they did not upload or re-upload at all. There might have been, and probably were sometimes, threatening letters sent to people's ISPs. Threatening letters don't mean anything at all.
If you'd spend any time at all looking at midjourney creations, there's no way you can conclude that there's any significant amount of "ripping off" people's work. Certainly not in all or most cases.
With the right prompt you might be able to get something that looks eerily similar to an existing work, or artist style, but hardly anyone is interested in doing that, except for memes which are by definition modified and transformative. Nobody wants to AI-generate a mimic of a copyrighted work. If they wanted to do that, they'd just rip off the original work.
None of this is a new issue. The Warhol case even resolved one remaining facet. If you take an original work and apply photoshop filters to it, or do the equivalent manually or with AI, that doesn't alleviate the copyright compliance burden. The fuzzy area is how similar something has to be to fall under copyright; that'll remain subjective until the law or courts resolve it or copyright collapses entirely under its own weight, but the vast majority of AI generated content is nowhere close.
Even the official clean OpenVPN app has its own sense of up and down tunnels, which could cause similar problems. Wireguard, at least in its official linux implementation, is much lighter weight and if necessary reestablishes an active session on demand (whenever there's traffic) without any interface-level tweaks. That's probably invisible to applications, or at least much less visible even if there are low-level syscalls that can inspect the state of a wg tunnel interface.
Using the official wireguard client allegedly works, but I don't know how they handle ip assignment, which is the complicated part for commercial VPNs like that.
Changing locations sometimes helps.
Why can't social media add flags to accounts? Discusses weapons, discusses police shootings, violence, under accusation of <x>, trans/queer promotion, terf or anti- trans/queer, then advertisers can select which flags they don't want to be associated with?
Is that even true? Are there no convicted rapists with monetized youtube channels? Youtube does background checks? Or they merely take action when someone's crime(s) make it into the news? That seems rather arbitrary and short-sighted. Some journalist or cabal of journalists can write a viral article about someone, about something that happened a decade or more ago, and a corporation will unilaterally decide to end the economic aspect of their relationship with the person?
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
Shorter 72 page one focused on mining resources
Many places these days are so paranoid that people will call police if children are out playing in a neighborhood unattended. Totally unlike the 80's. Others are trying (and sometimes succeeding) to pass laws specifically clarifying that it's legal to let kids roam neighborhoods. I don't know who I'm following on Twitter who mentioned this, but some place just passed such a law. There's been a "rewilding" movement for some time now, and people like Haidt are emphasizing how terrible it is for psychosocial development for kids not to be out with other kids socializing without direct parental oversight.
I still don't understand why it needs to look exactly the same. I get that habitually people say "turn to page X and look 2/3 down the page for the line starting "The quick brown fox jumped", but with digital documents that's not in my experience how anything works. You just say "the sentence starting with 'The quick brown fox'", and everyone can search for it in a few seconds.
If an official proceeding needs to be sure everyone's working from the same document, they can distribute, or publish hashes of, an epub or mhtml the same as they can for a pdf. There's no assurance that two pdfs that you think are the same document are actually the same document, any more than two epubs would be.
You could (or maybe you can't, but ebook readers should allow you to) disable any network access without explicit confirmation, so the javascript can't do anything evil other than modify the ebook being displayed. If you can't do that, that's up to ebook readers to solve, and not a flaw with epubs.
The output space of images (MB for larger images) tends to be larger than books (a few hundred KB of text for a long novel), but the perceptual output space of books is much larger.
Any determination that licensing is required for AI generation, or use of AI-generated works, is unacceptable until Congress or courts put some reasonable objective tests in place to determine what is and isn't a copyright violation for various types of works of various lengths. Not the ambiguous 4-factor test that is basically whatever the judge feels like. It will be a complete mess otherwise. They can't just define a new AI policy for copyright with a few types of works in mind; it has to work for all works.
You could look at this mathematically from a complexity perspective and try to define a similarity function that's true when a second work is close enough to a first work to be a derived work (assuming the first one had been seen by the creator of the second). Unfortunately that won't work because nobody can define such a function to everyone's satisfaction, and the courts wouldn't accept any informal suggestion of a definition when it didn't come from Congress. Specifically, you'd get into trouble with consistency in the function determining derived works depending on length of the work: short works, like a haiku, are much more sensitive to copyright violation in some ways... a mere 17 syllables is a complete reproduction and therefore a copyright violation, yet a single word isn't; for a novel, reproducing 1/17 of the content is almost certainly a copyright violation, but reproducing 17 syllables probably isn't.
Different stakeholders and creative re-mixers would want different things from the function. It's untenable.
For the vast majority of works that are untranslated, that isn't necessary, because, as mentioned, search works fine, and it's faster, too. For translated works, the concept of one published source of truth for page numbers is already broken, so you need some alternative to page numbers anyway.
> Doesn't seem like HTML would fly, either, given all the kinds of things that get embedded into PDF.
That's ironic. Browser PDF readers, at least open source ones, render PDFs as HTML using javascript. At least I'm sure about FF because I just checked that text from a native-digital pdf showed up in the DOM in developer tools.
What's the obsession with "looking the same everywhere"?
Page references: this shouldn't be a thing. Academia has already solved this problem for notable texts. Rather than nearly uncountable numbers of paragraphs that all run together, paragraphs or short sections or lines are numbered. See any good edition of Plato or Aristotle, or just about any notable play or longer poem ever translated. Relying on a single published layout of a work to reference is dumb.
Citing exact line numbers isn't even necessary for native-language works. When they're digital, search works. It works even better in flowed-format texts than it does in pdfs, which sometimes, depending on how the pdf was constructed, won't match text properly across newlines.
Visual quality: As long as images—data, charts, graphs, photographs—are not degraded beyond usefulness, the actual text, and its display, is up to the reader application. Everyone uses the web complete with mathjax, and those doesn't have Knuth-approved formatting in every respect. But they're good enough, and they work everywhere on every device without squinting or pinch to zoom. There are some people who insist on putting pre-rendered images of math in html, and they always look worse, because they don't match the text without a lot of work to have extra high-res images that are auto-scaled according to viewport and surrounding font size—work that I bet not many people have ever done in the history of html publishing.
The game AI naysayers like to play is that anything not made by a human is inherently mediocre, because value is largely subjective, and they implicitly define away the possibility of a great AI creator because knowing it was made by AI ruins it for them.
The same narrative existed for go, even the fall and winter before the Alphago–Lee Sedol match. The AI beat Fan Hui, but was still mediocre and would never challenge top professionals for the foreseeable future. There would be inherent limits an AI would run up against because it lacked some quality necessary to be a top-level competitor (or artist).
Her essay is attention-seeking nonsense. She can't predict the future of art-generating AIs. Nobody can. This way she can write a "mea culpa" and admit to being wrong to get some additional attention for herself and her works once AI renders human production of new works largely pointless—because nobody will be able to verify it's human-generated rather than machine-generated, and human-generated works will cost more.
A 100-year plan is for WordPress.com's benefit, not yours. They get a predictable accounting revenue stream for 100 years if they continue to exist; if not, no problem for them, they still got the money, while you get nothing (or whatever a bankruptcy court says). You get... hosting for 100 years. Maybe. What are the odds, and are you factoring that into the price you pay?
It reminds me of file locker sites' "lifetime subscriptions", which amount to however long they continue to operate before the owners lose interest in the hassle or get sued and have to shut down.
You can use books without buying them. e.g. libraries, or borrowing books from anyone even if they're not a "library".
Copyright is not about internal use, it's about copying and distribution.
This is not about what anyone thinks should be legal, but rather what is legal under the current law. The law was not designed for the digital era where "use" could be something other than a person consuming the content, and this has not been meaningfully addressed, therefore other uses are legal by default because that's how the law works.
[1] _Empress of Forever_, while not poetic, I thought had interesting ideas that were more fleshed out. A lack of focus kept it out of top-tier scifi like Simmons' Hyperion for me, but it's worth a read if you like high-concept scifi like that.
It wasn't like IA people woke up one day and decided to give publishers the middle finger because they felt like it. Trump had declared a national emergency due to COVID-19, under the guise of which Biden later tried to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars of student loans because he felt like it. Libraries were shut down and inaccessible to a lot of people during pandemic lockdowns. The NEL involved loaning people DRM'd books, not giving them out without controls. NEL also offered an email address copyright holders could contact to remove their content from the NEL; granted, visibility into that process wasn't great, but if you're a publisher or make a living as a self-published author and you aren't keeping tabs on major book-related news, isn't that on you?
IA's lending library is made up of scans. No casual reader wants to read scanned digital books.
I don't know what overtures were made to the publishers who ended up suing in part over the NEL (the lawsuits were more over digital lending of format-shifted works not specific to the NEL), but IA didn't try to blindside publishers in general. They had extensive dialogue with university presses, documented here: https://blog.archive.org/2020/04/27/forging-a-cooperative-pa...