Lawsuits are not guilty verdicts. Also, "lines of code" have nothing to do with whether they were copied, as in copy-paste, or filtered through somone's brain first.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about and are too lazy to even do a simple Google search, so what youthinks is pretty irrelevant.
It seems like an unnecessary button. LinkedIn already has an icon that labels slop posts generally. It's a blue field with white letters "in".
You're going to buy a car with a list price of $X. Then you find out that it was in a bad hailstorm, or driven by the dealership owner's kid all summer or something. Nothing has changed, so you're still willing to pay list price, right?
More similar to this situation, you're selling your corner store. Corner stores of that kind are typically worth about $Y. However, a new school opened close by and your store is suddenly making twice as much as similar stores. Nothing has changed, so you're still willing to sell for $Y right?
When a human reads code and then produces very similar code, that is infringement.
It is not, any more than when someone writes a book about elves, some Slashdotter parrots something they heard somewhere, or a half decent programmer writes any of the algorithms found in Numerical Methods. The GP is correct, copyright protects the specific expression, not the idea, and both law and precedent protect the case where you read something, put it down, then generate your own. Only substantial portions of exact text and distinctive and recognizable things like character names are protected, and even then only when there are no circumstances like a limited number of ways to write something.
Proving you did that can be tricky. THAT's why "clean-room" implementations were invented. You document the fact that the implementer had no contact with the original so any resulting expression is obviously not infringing.
GCC is covering their asses, as they should. They wrote a completely unenforceable policy so if some bit of code is found to infringe on something for whatever reason they can just remove it and blame the dastardly policy violating original submitter.
Nope and it's not AI. Those are expert systems and the chatbots are Lizabots making Barnum statements.
There was a time when actual computer scientitsts frequented this site. Naive Bayes is a classic AI algorithm, and natural language context filtering is a classic AI problem.
Business types call it "pivoting." It's when your great idea turns out to be not a great idea but you don't want to return the investors' money so you quickly come up with another great idea.
The Hugging Face founders seem to have wanted to be smartasses and name their company with an emoji instead of actual words. Then they accidentally became more famous than they intended.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
It's both.
Apparently they still make cars too.
You can consciously stop breathing for a short period of time, but you breathe, at the appropriate rate, without having to think about it. You can also have some conscious control over your heart rate, but your heart will happily beat without any connection to your brain at all, although without much rate control.
It's all completely separate. Your brain is massively parallel and physcially reconfigures itself when you learn something. It's more like an FPGA than a CPU.
It started as a chat app for teenagers. The name was actually the emoji.
Be nice. It's got to be rough finding out that the glorified founding myth of your entire civilization conflicts with a line some guys slipped into your childhood cultural conditioning materials in the 1950s.
Fortunately all the Google results for Homer are from the Simpsons.
That was 2025. Now they're an AI company.
Yeah, bullshit. From naive Bayes filtering your email to image generators, and LLMs quantifying the massive amount of natural language data we collect, lots of AI is very much cheaper. Even the smart chatbots probably make some things cheaper. The good applications fade into the background of civilization and people only recognize the silly mistakes.
Division is hard. People have trouble focusing on more than one thing at a time, and divison has both a numerator and a denominator. Usually the numerator is sexy and the denominator is kind of boring so people forget about the latter. In this case the denominator is sexy so they just treated it like it was actually the numerator.
I have a friend who worked for a decent sized startup. Their product was basically a web interface to a container around a Python interpreter. I asked him why anybody would pay for that and he told me that lots of companies can't install Python.
Somebody is going to sell a bunch of GPUs in a box with a nice fat service contract of course. Oh wait, they already do:
That's the thing about people who think they hate computers. What they really hate is lousy programmers. - Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in "Oath of Fealty"
