Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.
101 karma · joined August 29, 2020
Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.
I rarely see interviewer(s) asking questions to try and discover the person level of knowledge but instead ask questions showing theirs.
Going much over 100 has little correlation with wealth which is what most studies use. Then you run into correlation doesn’t equal causation problem too.
Business do care it is just much more difficult than people realize to make software simple and easy to use. Then you have the fact most software projects fail and way over budget so they think there is no other way. Therefore they end up settling since at least they got something that sort of works which is better than nothing.
Since neural networks are pattern matching based on the training input it is a derivative work of the training set. It says it right in first thing that comes up in auto regressive language models use the training input plus context to predict what the next word would be.
Now here where the fun begins if they try this in court. If you claim it’s generating new work then who owns the copyright? You may not realize how big of a deal this is but there was a court case you can lookup where a monkey took a selfy and the person who camera the monkey used tried to claim copyright and lost.
It's a pattern matching algorithm what exactly did they think it was going to do?
As people put off buying new cars when cars start becoming more widely available the prices stay higher until the shortage worked out and then prices of used and new car drops. Manufacturers are likely to overshoot the number of new vehicles since the models they are using assume the increased demand. This means once it is worked out a significant drop in prices and you can get vehicles really cheap. See 2008 cash for clunkers where it caused a spike in used cars price temporarily. It also had the effect that leases where cheaper since manufacturers believe they would be able to sale them used at a higher price which was only temporary causing them to lose money.
You do get increased prices for new stock that don’t have existing contracts. If you screw up your estimate of what you need and your suppliers don’t have the capacity to make your parts, now you have a shortage. Now you have to shutdown because you can’t get parts but a manufacturer who did a better job of estimating will be able to charge a higher price. In this case it would be Toyota which didn’t cut their chip orders when the crisis hit. Of course they are also likely to have some shortage of certain vehicles since there will be a shift in demand for their vechiles. So if you own work trucks the value of them will skyrocket right now since most of them in the US are made by the big 3 which don’t have the chips to manufacture them.
Current situation is people creating abstraction at the wrong level and not understanding the performance cost of things like reflection and ORMs.
So just sit back and watch for the margin calls to go out and GameStop will skyrocket to something ridiculous while the shorts try to unwind their position. Still don’t get how this mess is going to get cleaned up since it’s impossible for the shorts to cover.
The current problem in fiat money is what the new money is funding. This is a society/government policy choice and isn't an inherent flaw in fiat money. In the west the money is primary used to boost asset prices instead of used for production.
Seems like we are at a start of a transition period where we will move to more functional languages over the next 20 to 30 years. I wish a large company would design and modern ml and not try to make it backwards compatible with an existing runtime.