Because filtering the training data is so much harder than just having them swim through the internet swallowing everything, like whales eating krill.
And that is the entire problem with all the LLVM based systems. The moment any bad data is used in training the network, the bad data is in there forever and can not be "forgotten", simply suppressed via specific ruleset.
OK, ask the LLM to create some known exploits. If you're agentic, you can have it submit the patch automatically. Then if the kernel team is sufficiently agentic, they can approve the patch automatically and get it integrated.
I hope we NEVER get there. The last thing you want to do is let automated systems automate their own solutions that are automatically pushed out without any human overview and testing. You will suddenly wake up one day to "your" system farming crypto tokens for some random wallet somewhere....
And for some reason, Discord went to Klipy...?
Probably a Linux nerd (on
> next will be Jedi training school full of pointless teen angst.
Wasn't that "The Acolyte"?
> Heh, I've never heard that term before.
It's an acronym for "jack of all trades."
What, you mean you're not convinced to grab the no-name alpha-release "privacy browser" that cripples yourself if you don't let them MITM you?
It wasn't that hard - Netscape came on floppies, too.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia became the first court to specifically address the copyrightability of AI-generated outputs. The plaintiff challenged the Office's refusal to register an image that was described in his application as "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine." Affirming the Office's refusal, the court stated that "copyright law protects only works of human creation," and that "human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." It found that "copyright has never stretched so far [as] . . . to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absentany guiding human hand." Because, by his own representation, the "plaintiff played no role in using the AI to generate the work," the court held that it did not meet the human authorship requirement. The decision has been appealed.
I have not seen any appeals ruling yet on this. But I also do not expect one as this follows many other such copyright rulings in the past, such as the cases like the "monkey selfie" case, which the Copyright office issued a Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices 12/22/2014 which stated:
"only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention" and that "Because copyright law is limited to 'original intellectual conceptions of the author', the [copyright] office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants."
Then there is the case of the copyright of comic book "Zarya of the Dawn", authors by artist and AI consultant, Kris Kashtanova, which the images were all created/generated through the use of Midjourney. They Copyright office provided a copyright only on the compendium of the book itself, but all the individual images generated via Midjourney are not copyrightable and are in the public domain to be free for use by anyone, as the simple operation of prompts and instructions to Midjourney was insufficient human authorship to be able to claim a human created the work.
When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas
