It is not only in developing countries, even in developed countries it is a bit of a problem, the rise of “far right” in Europe etc is an example to this.
The problem is, which distro?, which DE? Even which drivers? Every distro usually has some missing pieces, when you raise that, people would say: ‘ oh you are using X thats why, it works on Y’
IANAL but searched a lot on this, this is very tricky subject legally.
To simplify:
- imagine all code Copilot trained on is GPL licensed.
- we have a universal function `isInfringing(code)` that has access to all GPL code, and returns `true` if it is infringing some GPL code.
for a given prompt; if `isInfringing(copilot(prompt))==false` we cannot claim copilot infringing on GPL code, even it is trained on GPLed code.
so the problem starts here; does the piece of code copilot emits, if written by yourself also would be infringing ?
> so the problem starts here; does the piece of code copilot emits, if written by yourself also would be infringing ?
why everyone on discussions tries to bring "if a human made it"? a generative AI operates way faster than anyone ever existed and ever will and probably a person aware of the license & acting respectful towards it, will create something more sensible/plausible to avoid plagiarism
now having dozen/hundreds/thousands of humans substituted by a machine that makes money for some for-profit company is really fair? even if they were a non-profit, as someone pointed up, people who create the content that feeds the weights aren't recieving a penny! they already made money with it, they will make more & that is/will upgrading/e the state of gen. AI
for sure legal battles on people copying code from permissive licenses should exist but it's feels a different discussion
because discussion is around 'legal' and laws only apply to humans. On ethical side of the discussion, I tend to agree with you. But it is also complicated subject; 'fair' in general is complicated, all this, GPL/AGPL stuff born out of this subject. Hosting GPL code as SaaS is legal but not 'fair' for example.
From my understanding of a blog post by GitHub last year, they are planning to launch a tool to find similar code to what emitted by CoPilot, implying that CoPilot does not mix multiple sources for a single function, but derives a code block it found with a similar functionality (or maybe bigger blocks with similar functionality, IDK).
If CoPilot indeed derives a function (or a functional block) from a single source, it might plainly violate the license of the repository where it derives the code from.
There are many questions, and nothing is clear cut. The only thing I know is, I will never use that thing.
Seems like a rather easy thing to go wrong in the client, no?
User sends message via client. Client fumbles the recipient id. Message ends up at the wrong recipient.
Examples: incorrect recipient ID attached to contact in list where users selects recipient. Buggy selection of multiple targets in the selection UI due to incorrect touch event handling. Incorrect deletion of previously selected and then deselected recipient from recipient array of multitarget message. Or if working low level even a good old off by one error and reading out of bounds data for the recipient list (though that one hopefully should trigger a faulty send request due to other stuff no longer matching). There is endless examples.
The server can't really safeguard against the client providing a legitimate send request even though the user intended to send it to another recipient.
There are many examples, I posted one to parent. Usually it effects some small percentage of users. But size of the team or company not directly solving the problem.
Sorry I could write it more clear I suppose; I meant 4 hour daily work 6 days almost has the same productivity (if not more) as 8 hour daily work for 4 days.
If you consider time for lunch and productivity decline in long working hours; having usable free time everyday without spending all your mental energy has huge benefits.
The main risk here is not to the sender but to the receiver. Receiver gets an OTP code from some number, it works, then they associate this number with telegram. So if sender, sends some secondary SMS like "we detected an intrusion attempt, please secure your account by following [some scam link]" they can have high degree of success.
SMS sender IDs can be spoofed quite easily as far as I know, just like caller ID, so they were never a trusted channel – but of course most people don't know that, and it's definitely a worrying extra threat.
I think tracking-free and ad-free are different concerns here. Basically you can offer ad-free for $X/month, but tracking consent should be separate ( basically anyone would be able to deny tracking )
Same issue on the Apple side will play out probably similar; either they can charge every developer some technology fee, or they cannot charge to anyone.
> I think tracking-free and ad-free are different concerns here
Maybe in theory, but in practice they are one and the same. The CPM on ads where you don't know the audience is so low that you might as well skip the ads entirely.
> Same issue on the Apple side will play out probably similar; either they can charge every developer some technology fee, or they cannot charge to anyone.
Yes, and the result for both will be that there is no free tier in the EU anymore. All EU developers will pay the CTF and all EU users will pay $10/month for for ad-free FB.
> Yes, and the result for both will be that there is no free tier in the EU anymore. All EU developers will pay the CTF and all EU users will pay $10/month for for ad-free FB.
And that's a good thing! If people really get value out of Facebook, they'll pay for it. If Facebook cannot deliver value without invading their users privacy and selling their data, maybe their business premise was flawed in the first place. Is it so alien to accept that the era of "free" online services might end after all?
Regarding the CTF specifically: I don't think Apple will get away with this after all, but we'll see.
I know you’re not the person to ask about this. Just asking out of curiosity and frustration: Why do advertisers think that they are entitled to everything about my life, family, habits, and other private information? Being able to collect and correlate data from various resources to identify everything about me doesn’t change the fact that I am entitled to my own privacy.
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."
> Maybe in theory, but in practice they are one and the same. The CPM on ads where you don't know the audience is so low that you might as well skip the ads entirely.
Your case only valid with "zero consent" case. This is proved with Apple's tracking protection for apps already; given that you have some x% of users consenting to tracking, CPM value for non-tracking users are within 85-95% range.
