Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:um ok, but... (Score 1) 50

You're not saying anything that I or someone else hasn't already said in this discussion and therefore I'm well on top of it, except that it's off by default, that part I didn't know. Perhaps I turned it on, I don't recall. And your claim that it doesn't work if you're not "aligned" with Steam, whatever that's supposed to mean. It's always worked for me.

Comment Re:Stolen is one thing (Score 1) 67

You are thinking about how GPL interacts with binaries and source.

I am.

It surely is no open source license, but it is still a license granting usage rights (otherwise nobody could legally use claude code).

But that's absolutely the question here! That's exactly what I'm talking about! The question absolutely is already "can anyone legally use Claude-produced code?" And I don't have a strong opinion because I'm not an IP lawyer, and though I have strong opinions on how it should work, they are not particularly relevant to that argument.

But I do have some thoughts, even though I am not an IP lawyer, on what the argument hinges on, and what the GPL has to say is absolutely relevant here if using Claude does not exempt one from having to follow the copyright of the source material. And so that is absolutely in turn the argument that every single LLM as a service purveyor is making, whether they have done so in so many words or not, because if that is not so then they are party to copyright crimes whose pure punishment-related fines would be in the billions or trillions of dollars plus prison terms lasting until approximately the heat death of the universe (which will no doubt be due to excessive use of AI.) They would have criminally (willfully and for profit) infringed on copyrights, in numbers of times which stretch from here to eternity.

LLMs are supposed to be legal because their creation is based on Fair Use. But there's no hard standard for what is or is not Fair Use, only a lot of examples of outcomes in court. LLMs are novel, there can be no perfect precedent for them. Truly settling this is going to require new laws.

Comment Re: Fundamentally Untrustworthy (Score 1) 31

Put down the bong.

You think that's supposed to be some kind of insult? Yawn.

You could put the system on rails and the problem would still be that the passenger capacity per vehicle is still about on par with a minivan.

That's a feature.

To move mass amounts of people, you need large passenger capacities per vehicle

Plainly and obviously false. We are already moving mass amounts of people with cars, despite all their many deficiencies.

and frequently scheduled fixed route service

Also false, although it does make planning simpler and wait times shorter so yes, you would likely run a certain percentage of empty vehicles through the system.

or a big sidewalk and get rid of the vehicles entirely

PRT can be elevated, and use basically no space on the ground, so it can coexist with all existing forms of transport.

Ever try to take a shuttle to a rental car agency at LAX?

Rental car agencies require a large footprint, so they can only be sited in areas where that is possible. That typically means in the outskirts of an airport. I haven't had LAX as a final or origin since the 1980s.

and whether it's steel wheels and rails or a rubber tire guideway system isn't relevant

It's not relevant to that, which isn't a problem anyway with an elevated PRT system, but it is relevant to efficiency. PRT solves two problems with cars, one of them being pneumatic tires, and the other being safe platooning. There is fundamentally no way for cars to ever be safe doing that at high speeds, and the tires are a huge part of that.

Even the French figured this one out, with Michelin being a huge proponent of rubber tire trackway trains

Tire company is in favor of using tires? Will you fucking listen to yourself?

Slashdot Top Deals

Welcome to boggle - do you want instructions? D G G O O Y A N A D B T K I S P Enter words: >

Working...