That's not how copyright works. There is no "use it or lose it". You legally retain control of licensing for copying or distribution, including derivative works (samples) for the full copyright duration.
There's a limit of 3 years for you to bring a copyright infringement case after a specific infringement takes place, but that doesn't stop you from bringing further cases against further infringements. You don't "lose" copyright if you fail to self-police it, as you might lose a trademark.
It gets very complicated around this specific 1969 sound recording and suing for copyright infringement, because prior to 1972, sound recordings were subject to US state law (presumably Georgia as the Holly Bee Music Co. was incorporated in Atlanta?) rather than federal law. But the copyright on the recording will run until 15 February 2067, as will every other sound recording published in the USA between 1957 and 1972: https://library.mi.edu/musiccopyright/duration
The drummer, Gregory Coleman, died homeless and penniless. Some UK DJs raised money for the bandleader, Richard Lewis Spencer, in 2015. He died in 2020. So there's probably not going to be anyone suing you for infringing the copyright on Amen, Brother, but it's not not infringement.
Your framing makes it seem like these companies decided to reduce the size of their products for the health of their customers. We all know they're doing it to save on costs and increase profits.
Why would news outlets go the extra mile and re-frame it as "Companies are reducing the size of unhealthy products while maintaining the same price and here's why that's a good thing..." unless they were in the pocket of these companies? That would be editorializing to me.
There's a saying "open source is for losers". What it means is that winners in a market don't want open source. The losers in a market push for it to commodify it eliminate the winner's advantage.
Now some of these tech companies open source various libraries but none of it is core to their business. It's marketing, essentially. Or they're trying to get free labor from the community. Google had protocol buffers and Stubby, for example. Facebook had no open source equivalent and didn't have Google's resources so they created Thrift and open sourced it.
Given this, many people, myself included, take Meta releasing open weight models as conceding defeat. They're unable to compete with Google, Anthropic or OpenAI. Their failures in attracting and retaining top AI talent backs this up.
So what you're seeing is people just piling onto Zuckerberg because he seems to have no idea of what to do with Meta. The Metaverse was a $70B+ disaster.
Note that Chinese labs don't fit this model because the Chinese government wants to commodify models as a national security interest.
Thanks, I think I understand your point better now. In this case, though, you are wrong about both my intentions and the relative practical value of the two approaches (to me).
I'm not doing this to take creative or intellectual credit in any external way; you're right that there is some degree of increased personal satisfaction (which I don't see as a problem, as long as it doesn't crowd out more wholesome ways of 'earning' that satisfaction), but I'm not kidding myself about what I've actually done here. I also write my own code for fun/creative expression/intellectual stimulation/showing off, but that's a separate thing and there's not much crossover between the two types of project for me.
And the end products really are useful to me in a way that I couldn't replicate just by using something that already exists, and couldn't replicate nearly as easily by manually modifying open source. (I'm sure I could do it by starting with open source and using an LLM to make changes, and in other cases I have done exactly that, but at that point I don't really see the conceptual difference -- I'm still getting an LLM to write code and then repeatedly running that code. Ideally I would be giving something back by making a useful contribution to the public repo(s), but that would turn this into a completely different, more tedious and effortful thing, and I'm not sure it would be welcome anyway.)
Fair perspective, though I actually prefer this for two reasons:
* When it's proposing responses for me to choose between, a description like "I close the PR and you make a followup" is ambiguous - is "I" there "the entity making the proposition (the LLM)" or "the entity making the choice (me)".
* I have a line in my `AGENTS.md` specifically instructing it to call me by my name; if it stops doing so, that's a telltale that context-bloat is pushing out other instructions.
The gains wouldn't be "free lunch", it's the result of time and effort researching optimal design and architecture.
Even if the idea of "no free lunch" was taken liberally discounting the cost of research, it would only be limiting to systems built from a foundation of optimization, but that's not the case. The foundation so far has been one of brute force scaling. Usually meaning there is lots of room for optimization.
> It's not like Meta has been building their empire on open ecosystems.
Is this actually true? They have their closed social graph or whatever but come to think of it they're built on a lot of open tech, the web, Android, etc. Maybe they don't contribute back to a lot of these things?
I'm fully ready to believe it but it would be interesting to dive into this conjecture.
A read that happens to touch a particular torment nexus fd is still a long-running syscall, even if the syscall servicing routine itself is not long-running. The underlying problem is that program code that is "in a syscall" or "in an instruction" is in a special state for which interruption might not be possible or implemented well[0].
There were some brief excellent years in the nascent days of the blogosphere where stories that CNN would miss (especially stories about marginalized groups) managed to get widespread attention and the compensation to journalists held up. But where we are today in terms of news compared to the 00s or 90s (even with all the retrospective knowledge about journalism catastrophes like NYT's coverage of the Iraq War) is so much fundamentally worse.
Journalism, if done correctly, is unprofitable - the times in American history it has thrived, imo, have been when journalists have been patronized by people willing to trade money for prestige. That could have happened with the WaPo but now it appears to be more convenient to have a mouthpiece even if it's obvious to everyone.
Organizations like NPR and the CBC that get government funding can survive a while, but inevitably an administration will come into power that will threaten them or outright deny their funding to the point of impotency. Still, given how cheap they are to us in terms of a national budget it feel like just diverting 5% of the DOD's unmarked funding to just throwing money at journalists with no strings attached would probably result in immense transparency and quality.
That's a terrible analogy. Do you even use agents? You can tell one to rewrite complex applications in a different language, solve open research problems, or develop novel viruses. This is nothing like pressing the gas pedal.
Preach! I spent several hours this weekend trying to move my library between computers. So many popups and warnings telling me that I need to do something with no explanation of why. The docs are a mess. The library compatibility is a mess. Every few months they do something that fucks up libraries or makes them incompatible with some hardware. I just refuse updates now.
Rather than trying to make a new, shiny library, they should just release rekordbox 2.0, and then everyone would have a common lexicon to ask whether something is “rekordbox 2 compatible”. But instead we have this questionably compatible library plus as part of old, busted software that tries to brow best you into wrecking your old libraries.
I just use Claude to explain rekordbox to me now, and it is a bit more helpful than forums, though it also often gets confused from the conflicting advice/docs on the internet
To answer most of the questions above simultaneously (to some degree):
I only care about the content of someone's character and how their actions impact the rest of the world, not the country they happen to be a citizen of, a fact which for non-immigrants (the vast majority of people) is completely random happenstance.
If already wealthy foreign agents become wealthier at the expense of impoverished Americans, I find that to be unfortunate. If already wealthy Americans become wealthier at the expense of impoverished non-Americans, I find that to be just as unfortunate.
I'm not going to cheer someone (athlete, business leader, or otherwise) on just because they are American. The fact that they are American is as irrelevant to me as the color of their eyes.
Do they seem to be a good person who treats others well? If yes, I will cheer for that person, whether they are American or not. Do they seem like an entitled asshole that treats others poorly? If yes, I will cheer against that person, whether they are American or not.
And the reason I currently label myself anti-America is that I believe that collectively we are the entitled asshole that treats others poorly. And we can't just pawn that off on Trump to be the scapegoat. He didn't materialize out of nowhere. We elected him. Twice. The second time after a failed insurrection. We have collective culpability.
> As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court -- even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills and resources in litigation.
This would only be true in a vacuum. Ignoring several leaps of progress where it would suddenly be allowed for an AI to represent one in court (imagine the size of the context window) and you could also call it from prison. That is not what is imbalanced about the US court system. Whoever has more money can drown someone in court filings and court fees and then drop their case financially ruining someone.
I feel like there's this assumption that some people picked up a few months back and never examined, that the big guys were going to keep plodding along with the same old methodologies and the little nimble guys with AI might be able to nimbly out play them.
But the simple truth is 100 programmers with AI are going to do a lot more work than 1 or 2 programmers with AI. All the usual considerations for communication overhead and all the old reasons why 100 programmers aren't necessarily 100 times as productive as 1 are in play... but so are all the reasons why that group of 100 programmers is going to outdo that 1 no matter how hard that 1 works.
We are probably in roughly the middle phase of the time period when we're still learning to harness AIs at all, and seeing simply some modest accelerations of process. Eventually we're going to progress to getting significantly enhanced productivity from them for pretty much everybody. And then what will happen is not that the SaaS market crashes, but what constitutes an entry-level SaaS product will rise up to meet the increased programming firepower. Find me a SaaS whose current two-year roadmap is "Eh, don't do anything, really, we're set" and I'll show you the SaaS company who probably ought to be really, really worried about AI eliminating their entire niche. I'm sure there are some out there, but it's not the usual SaaS company experience.
It is a bit crazy that everybody seems to agree that diet and exercise are important, and yet it seems like society is hell bent on making those things very hard to do well.
I went to the mall recently (big mistake) and I had to get lunch at the food court. I don't think there was a single gram of fiber across the 10 or so restaurants. So much of America is drive-thru garbage. Yup -- you don't even have to stand up to get your Big Mac. You can endanger other people by eating it while you drive.
We tell people to get exercise and then force them to have 9-5 desk jobs that have a 45 minute car-commute each way. And what's so much worse is that people are paying a ton of money for that car that's slowly killing them. It's not entirely their fault though -- that's just the way our society is set up. Walkability is a luxury only the rich can afford.
Then, 20 years later you show up to the doctor and the standard course of action is to prescribe a bunch of medications. The doctor says "you should exercise more and eat better" and many people just don't.
You can try to dismiss it with "just a standard heartbeat accidentally left in" [1], but until such plausibly-deniable malice is treated as malice, it will only get worse, while remaining plausibly-deniable - until that pretense becomes unnecessary.
[1] Though if we are being honest, such a "standard" feature is already malicious.
i haven’t had much luck with anything under ~120b, feels like models released on that order is coming to a trickle. the last few qwen models didn’t seem to go that high, and i got worse results than qwen3.5-122b
I can see this , but we do have migration strategies to reduce this risk. During development the business requirements (embodied by the logs and running state) can get the app close to perfect. and during migration canary'ing the traffic to the new stack until things are perfect.
I know the migration cost isn't zero, but neither are the operations costs of the legacy software, or the losses from bugs and lossy software. and now the migration costs are very low
There's a limit of 3 years for you to bring a copyright infringement case after a specific infringement takes place, but that doesn't stop you from bringing further cases against further infringements. You don't "lose" copyright if you fail to self-police it, as you might lose a trademark.
It gets very complicated around this specific 1969 sound recording and suing for copyright infringement, because prior to 1972, sound recordings were subject to US state law (presumably Georgia as the Holly Bee Music Co. was incorporated in Atlanta?) rather than federal law. But the copyright on the recording will run until 15 February 2067, as will every other sound recording published in the USA between 1957 and 1972: https://library.mi.edu/musiccopyright/duration
Ultimately, no samplers paid The Winstons any royalties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break#Royalties
The drummer, Gregory Coleman, died homeless and penniless. Some UK DJs raised money for the bandleader, Richard Lewis Spencer, in 2015. He died in 2020. So there's probably not going to be anyone suing you for infringing the copyright on Amen, Brother, but it's not not infringement.