In New Hampshire people have, in RADAR cases, been able to subpoena the operators, the calibrators, the calibration certificates, and the source code, on these bases.
The judge allows it, the prosecution drops the case.
One strategy is to demand a trial on every small fine to tilt the economics in favor of liberty.
Follow the money.
This stinks of sabotage inflicted by unethically motivated actors.
Presuming they're not just incredible fools, which we ought not assume.
2) Police officer hides, catches unsuspecting driver speeding, stops driver, issues summons.
This is the very best approach. It's got the perfect tension leading to the greatest safety.
When you're expecting such an ambush (getting caught a few times will teach you to do that), and you're really paying attention and playing "spot the ambush" then they won't catch you. But because you're being so damned focused and alert, you're also a safer driver.
OTOH if they nail you, that means you weren't paying attention. So you weren't merely speeding; you really literally were speeding unsafely, and the ticket is the proof. (If you were so safe, then how come you didn't see the guy with the radar gun in time?)
Every. Single. Time. I got ticketed, my mind was wandering and not fully focused on the road. I wasn't looking for a speed trap, so I didn't see it in time. Busted. And those times I was looking? I didn't fall for it. I slowed down and avoided a ticket.
The ideal system (in terms of safety) happens to also be downright sporting! The ol' classic speed trap was almost
Nah, AWS provides logistics to military and intelligence and has for quite a while.
It's tough to argue, "these aren't military targets, we just rent the equipment and provide services to the military for hundreds of billions of dollars."
Which is probably what people will argue.
Your red-pilled lawyer will soon have a reputation. They'll find their client pool shrinking, judges not giving them the benefit of the doubt, and other lawyers not referring work to them.
They'd better do a lot of slop cases quickly and hope the money lasts, because that strategy is going to tank their practice faster than they graduated law school.
Do they only have to state a reason or does somebody have to adjudicate whether that reason is validly "justified"? We have a Public Utilities Commission here that pretends to do such things.
Or is this one of these, "you can't know, so try it and a judge will tell you what the law was" sort of things?
Maybe somebody who understands Italian jurisprudence can clarify their theory of law.
Agreed.
Also Major Tom shouldn't try to fix anything on a spacecraft if it's somebody else's job.
I don't want to say I heard Mission Control on NASA TV reading down a procedure to tell an ISS commander how to tie his shoes but it felt like that.
Velcro, I guess.
Most helpful comment of the week.
Much kudos.
Yes, and they didn't notice that the lab tests were all done with plastic gloves.
I don't know, I went back to CPAN after I came to understand the socioeconomic and cultural ramifications of mandatory white space.
Papers, please?
"They yearn for the greenscreens."
More generally, if you're talking to a robot that runs on someone else's machine, you should not be surprised if the machine owner spies on you. Maybe it shouldn't work this way - I'd say it definitely shouldn't, and the big outfits acknowledge this by pretending it doesn't - but that's the world we live in.
The assumption should always be that these robots are front ends to Zuckerberg's & Google's user profiling systems. Your robot talk therapist or cofounder is trying to help Nestle and Ford manipulate you. And let's not forget LEOs and intelligence - we haven't heard much about how they're targeting this stuff yet. But they would be incompetent if they aren't.
That's generally how it's being done. The robot reads the code and writes specs. Then another robot reads the specs and writes code. If courts still accept the traditional clean room defense (and why wouldn't they?) then they're probably going to say it isn't a derived work.
It looks like the big catch, the actual source of uncertainty, is that the instance of the robot that reads the specs and writes code, may have seen the original code as part of its training data. That'll be enough to keep it from being a true clean room. In those cases, you'll be totally right.
But for any particular given project, was it trained on the original code? That'll be a case-by-case thing, and I think in a very long-term way, the answer will increasingly be No, simply because codebots' need to keep training on newly-published code, will diminish.
As an analogy, imagine you're a human author, and for some weird reason, one thing you like to do is have people tell you high-level plot summaries (specs) and then you write a detailed story from that. Someone says "the moon is unusually bright one night and people fear something bad has happened" and you write a story much like Larry Niven's Inconstant Moon, from that prompt alone. And you do this with 100 more stories, and most of them honestly don't appear to be derived. You take specs like "bombardier has crazy war experiences" and your resulting story is nothing like Catch-22.
But then one day, you're up in the attic and you find an old box that's been sitting there for decades, and inside, you find an old, worn, dog-eared paperback of Larry Niven stories which happens to include Inconstant Moon. Oh shit, you must have read that 45 years ago and then somehow "forgot" that you had, so your story wasn't truly independent of Niven's work. Your story turned out to not be "clean" at all, whoops! It was a derived work after all, because you read it ("trained on it") when you were a kid.
But the other 100 stories? Nope, those really were clean. Your story-writing process was almost legally foolproof, except that you had to learn reading and writing at some point, so your childhood favorites needed to be off-limits.
The heat wave made March be like late spring. Things that normally bloom in May, bloomed in March. And yesterday I got my first MRGCD irrigation of the year, flooding my back yard and letting the shade trees greedily suck up the water. We're spending a lot more time outside on the patio, compared to previous years during this time-of-year.
If I were stupid, I would be out of my mind with pleasure. Things feel wonderful right now.
But that water I just got
This summer is going to SUCK.
So begin the Obfuscated Object Code Compiler wars, to keep robots from writing machine language decompilers. The next few years are gonna be a wild ride!
If a computer program ingests code (whether GPL or not) and then outputs some code, the big question is whether or not the resulting code is a derived work.
If it's not a derived work, then the license of the original code is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter if it's GPLed, fully proprietary, or somewhere in between. The license has no say in the matter, because nobody ever needs to agree to the license; whatever they're doing is legal under copyright law so they already had all the permission they needed, without ever needing the additional rights granted by a license.
If it is a derived work, then that's copyright infringement unless the person who does it has permission. And the only way to get permission (i.e. cause copyright infringement to have not happened) is to agree to the license. So yes, the output would have to be GPLed.
But I don't think we really know whether or not robots reading code and then writing code from what they "learned," are creating derived works. Ask again in a few years, after a few court cases. This is hard. Rational people can disagree and come up with pretty good arguments no matter what side they're on. We'll see what the courts decide.
I think the most interesting case for determining it, won't involve a GPLed input. It'll be if Anthropic sues this project, since they will have contributed arguments to both sides. They'll have to argue "it is a derived work" in court, but to all their customers, they have and will continue to preach "it's not a derived work."
Center meeting at 4pm in 2C-543.
