I think some punctuation would have made his sentence make more sense. I think he was saying, a lot of the anti AI stuff that is made, is slop in its own right, and he can't wait for it to stop.

You could probably trace how it comes up with the probabilities of the next token. Though the meaning of all the weights are probably going to be lost on you. Once you've got your probabilities and you've limited to some top number, it's just a dice throw at that point.

I agree. Though, in practice, at least in internet arguments, people tend to "diagnose" people so they can dismiss them in some manner, rather than grapple with the argument being presented. In the "Oh, you are just a so and so, I don't need to entertain this" kinda manner.

We didn't think Half Life 1 looked realistic against reality, just that it was the most realistic graphics we had seen yet.

It's not like we looked at the game and went that's indistinguishable from reality.

Misspellings are misspellings. They happen, nothing to get worked up about as long as you can decode what was said. But whatever, if it annoys you, it annoys you.

It's been a couple of days now, and I'm replying through the response reply so I'm lacking rereading the context. But my memory here, was someone was explaining it as a potential joke in a typical social fashion, where you'd expect people to have a bit of chuckle but know that's not really the case.

Instead a bunch of people are getting so literal and piling on them for not being correct, I suspect they already knew they were unlikely to be correct.

It's the kind of response that sucks the fun out the internet. It just teaches people, no-one will appreciate a bit of playing around and everything becomes a little more sterile.

That the misspelling is amusing because if you look at it in a certain way it would still apply to AI/LLM companies. Whether it was intended or not.

Do we always have to be so tight and literal about everything?

These days I'd recommend Fedora's KDE spin if I'm honest. I don't think I can recommend Ubuntu anymore with the way Canonical is.

You can fork it, but that's because they published the code under a license that allowed you to do that. I think you'll find the copyright is still theirs. Legally, they own their work. Contract law says that if they offer it under a license that's non-revokable, they can't take that away from you. But they could relicense it so future changes come under different terms. They can even multi license it, so some people get one set of terms. The open source ones. and others get a more set of terms suitable for making money off it when being used by others (Assuming all contributors agree, if it's a multi contributor project, though a single contributor could do that with just their patches but that'd be a pain).

It's the reason, in projects where the contributors don't sign over their copyrights over to the maintainer, that you have to get everyone's agreement to switch license (or remove code that was contributed by someone who didn't agree). Because each contributor owns their code and gets to choose the license it's distributed under.

It does belong to someone, the people who wrote/contributed to it. And they chose to share their work in a way that allows you to use it on (almost) anyway you like.

Right... So if the AI is getting better.. the even less likely people are going to properly learn things so the Junior skill gap would be even harder to close... Surely?

It's not under a FOSS license, so be sure to read the license to see what you can do.

I think it's more to do with, are you really examining your feelings and understanding where they are coming from? Working with something new, that puts you back in the place of having to learn stuff again, is often enjoyable, not because of the thing you are using, but because it's new and your brain, despite what people think, likes learning new things.

I'm glad people feel like they are having fun with rust. But the Rewrite it in Rust crowd are just creating more work for the sake of it.

And I'm a fan of rust.

But hey ho, if they want to spend their time recreating stuff we have excellent options for, who am I to stop them. I just think there are better things they could spend their time on.

Aren't patents by definition public? You need them to be public to know you are running afoul of them.

Right, is it faster including the time it's taken you to verify that the tests are testing what they should be testing and isn't just testing the implementation as written?

A null does not make it memory unsafe. You aren't accessing invalid memory, the runtime just raises a NRE. Which is fine. No memory safety violated.

Java is, as long as you stick to pure java and not native interop, entirely memory safe. And that's achieved by giving up control of memory allocation to the garbage collector.

Rust is not the first memory safe language. It does however, manage to achieve memory safety without needing a garbage collector. Which is what drew my initial interest.

I'll be whatever person I like thanks.

And most open source software starts as a one person job. And as you approach something that other people see the value in, you'll likely attract people who will help.

For the most extreme example, see the Linux Kernel itself.

Someone has to start the ball rolling, and if it's something you want, it may as well be you.

Office 365 also refers to the desktop apps as well as the web versions, has done for many years now. Though I suppose it's all copilot 365 now.

Source: Am office worker where we use office 365, and we all use the native system software, with the browser versions as for quick editing when elsewhere.

Go make one then?

They ruled that for copyright to apply, a human must have authored the work.

Now if an AI spits out code that's a duplicate of a humans authored work. Then you could argue the author is actually the original human. And this it would be covered by their original copyright

Fedora, I think, is pretty good for a normal user.