Well, that part might be temporarily excused by naivety. But he did ask, was not replied to - and he did it anyway. So I actually do not believe in naivety. And now it is past that point anyway.
In general really no, but I do see the point in not asking for permission for everything to get anything done.
(I am german, here the saying is, anything not explicitely allowed is forbidden and there is no fun in this)
But I hate the stance when people do it, when it is clear that no permission will be given. To establish facts on the ground so to say.
(But there are exceptions where I think it is legit)
Pretty cool. What I don't understand is why both my USB@1 and USB@2 show the same connected devices. I'd expect to only see the respective devices. USB@1 is my USB-hub monitor, the other one is connected to my phone. Both show keyboard, etc. plus my phone as connected devices.
I want to raise taxes to get rid of billionaires and the historically high inequality resulting in many (most?) of today's problems. More money for the government makes it a win-win. Not American, so I don't have a horse in this particular race.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. The first difficulty in real world (even idealized) politics is voicing a consistent independent stance and thinking through the implications. Many cannot even make it that far.
The second and greater difficulty is that realizing that a solution that is politically untenable is not a solution, it's a campaign slogan. I don't know how we get people to move past this difficulty.
I assume you are suggesting that a tax on the rich is not politically viable.
When the structural violence that permeates our society finally manifests in the only violence the lower class can execute - this non-viability might change.
It will be a harrowing time- and I hope we avoid this.
The billionaires will cease to exist one way or another.
I'm an American with a few horses in this race, and I also want to raise taxes to get rid of billionaires and provide more money to the government.
I'd prefer to use that money for "progressive" things like schools and libraries and parks (voted in 2024 to increase my own taxes on those things specifically, but my neighbors voted against them), but I'd even settle for spending it on the military if it came out of the pockets of the oligarchs to reduce inequality.
I think this is less about source code itself, and more about the surrounding ecosystem of project management. Handling of issues, pull requests, who gets commit or admin access, all that stuff. If you mirror your git repo to other providers, fine. But if you have thousands of issues and PRs on Github, you still can't really move away and you still can't really work if Github is down.
Edit: I absolutely support federated forges, including Tangled as well as ActivityPub based approaches like the (slow) progress to federate Forgejo.
There's not one thing that stands out, but he abandoned the entire core principles of OpenAI (took a 180), constantly lies to people and doesn't plan to stop.
No mention of any linguistic theory, some arbitrary (?*) metrics mixed together and even more arbitrary thresholds. Why does 75% "similarity" mean "writes the same"?
I don't mind people sharing their plugs about related things, but don't you think the connection here is a bit far-fetched?
Imo we're past the point where being vibe-coded is an interesting link. This is a thread about an interactive map of middle earth — not about vibe-coding, token usage or anything like it. Imagine if everyone posted their vibes projects now...
Ironic. Even more so since it seems like in general LLM output doesn't seem to be proteced by copyright in the first place. And since Claude code is entirely written by Claude code, it shouldn't be proteced as well.
A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude generally can. The famous monkey selfie case [1] was different mainly because the human "photographer" had absolutely no role in the creation of work. Most LLM uses don't fall into such ambiguity.
I've heard and read it from various sources already that output isn't copyrightable, and hinted as such recently in a comment. Now I've went to look up some sources.
> Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there
is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
> Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute
authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
I really hope that someone disputes their DMCA claim based on that. I imagine no one will, since they'll probably be sued by Anthropic, but it would be really funny.
There's no way it was entirely written by Claude Code. But even if it were, collections and databases can be protected even if their individual elements are not.
What's this armchair lawyer interpretation I'm hearing these last weeks, "LLM output doesn't seem protected by copyright"? It's extremely clear, from jurisprudence, that the level of human intervention in the process is what determines if it's copyrightable. This blanket statement is sensationalist, to say the least.
reply