ricecake

Whoah, I never said I wasn't interested in the exchange, only that I wasn't interested in the topic.
As someone who's extremely insistent that it's grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I'm shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you're persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else's point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there's no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That's abundantly clear.

My point is that you're being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you're directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I'm really not interested in the topic. I'm talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That's not "applying the argument consistently", it's removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It's really not.
It's not unreasonable for someone to think "developers who use copy written code from AI aren't liable for infringement" applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don't like one of those.
It's perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn't apply both ways, but that doesn't make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn't see any gotchas or argument, and didn't make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you're referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn't objectionable.

I don't really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it's the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it's not like conversations can't drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could've been stealing open-source code all along. They don't really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that's the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there's consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don't launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn't even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I've already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.

I believe what they're referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.

Because of the untested nature of the situation, it's unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.

We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.

Uuh, 1) kids regularly love vegetables if they're prepared right, and pretty often if they're prepared wrong because kids are weird and will eat a bowl of corn and rice. 2) do you actually think they're making the assertion we should let kids decide policy initiatives? Or that a billboard can't make a joke when saying you should ride the train?

That actually makes security much, much worse. It's training users to make authenticating part of their continuous routine, so when a random site that looks like the login page asks for their password you're inclined to simply proceed, since diligence has an excessively big time cost.
Same goes for mfa. If validating every request, particularly if you use a service with push based mfa, takes too much effort then people just fulfill the request.

The ideal is that you only authenticate when it's actually important, as an exceptional circumstance that makes the user pause and make sure things are good. Changing the bank account your pay gets sent to warrants an authentication.
"You've been using email for 20 minutes" doesn't.

Realistically your session should probably be about the length of a workday with a little buffer for people who work a little longer to not end up with 99% of a session sitting open on their laptop. 9-10 hours should be fine.

You want the machine credentials that a laptop uses to talk to the mail server, or the hr software uses to talk to the doobips to have short credentials so if someone hacks the mail server they have a short window to use them, but that doesn't impact user authentication requirements.

You don't get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.

Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?

democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder

Who said anything about ignoring? It's harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It's less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I'll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can't do something to help people because it's accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn't try to keep them from getting HIV.

This is what's called having a semblance of moral principles.

I'm sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.

Here's an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?

The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.

A lot of people view it differently.

We draw a line at literal genocide

To many people, you don't. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you'll vote for them, but you don't view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.

Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don't get "none of the above". You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.

Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.

That's the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it's one of two.

So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying "they're both the same to me", and later indignantly saying how they're against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn't sell it hard enough.

No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it's confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn't do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn't say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.

If he had praised them and then did it, it simply would have made this joke not work.

does that question make you feel uncomfortable?

No? Seriously. You're fishing for drama and cognitive dissonance where there just isn't any.

The fuck is wrong with you? It's making fun of him for deriding something and then immediately being angry that NATO, the useless thing we don't need, didn't help.

You're fishing for drama by missing the point of "trump is a buffoon".

Obviously fake launch picture. Have you ever noticed that our images of rocket launches increase in quality at nearly the exact same rate that our ability to simulate smoke on graphics cards increases?

It's like they're not even trying.