Why would society not mandate cameras to make sure the operators of thousands of kilograms of metal at high speeds are paying attention to the road instead of their phone? And to be able to punish them if they are not.
Assuming pedestrian and children’s safety is a priority.
I guess being permanently paralyzed because someone rams into you because they were checking their texts or TikTok is not harm, but a video recording of someone not paying attention to the road is harm.
Isn’t one of the most common ruminations of modern society that children cannot roam freely due to excess risk of being hurt or killed by a distracted driver?
>IIHS says pedestrian crash deaths have risen 80% since hitting their low in 2009. The statistics show that 2021 was almost as deadly to people on foot as last year. Nearly 7,400 walkers — more than 20 people a day — lost their lives in 2021 after being struck by a vehicle.
Airline pilots get recorded, why shouldn’t drivers?
> Airline pilots get recorded, why shouldn’t drivers?
AFAIK, general aviation pilots are not recorded. Black boxes are only a thing in commercial aviation, so a more appropriate analogy would be the recording of bus or semi-truck drivers.
There is far less moral hazard as a general aviation pilot because death/grave injury is far more likely in an airplane collision, whereas a personal vehicle driver is relatively safe, especially in vehicles most dangerous to others
Regardless, what is and is not required of all pilots is beside the point. The point is society implements a safety/accountability measure to prevent x rate of injuries/deaths…but society does not implement the same safety/accountability measure to prevent y rate of injuries/deaths where y is far greater than x.
The discrepancy is because it is politically unpopular to hold the people causing the larger rate of injury accountable (voters who drive personal cars), whereas it is politically popular to hold the people causing a smaller rate of injury accountable (commercial pilots).
I tend to go by results, and for me, "results" means shipped* code that is used and accepted by end users**, can be maintained and extended***, and doesn't generate trouble tickets.
* MVP doesn't count.
** Can include users inside the organization.
*** It's OK if it requires senior-level ongoing support. I think expecting it to be maintained by monkeys is a bad idea.
To me, "MVP doesn't count" feels like a crazy take -- in many roles, the _only_ ask is to produce a series of different MVP's. I guess maybe the definition of "MVP" is a bit squishy, and these people-who-ship-MVPs themselves make MVP-MVP's, which shouldn't count as shipped?
I spent most of my career, shipping finished product, which, in many cases, probably could have benefitted from an MVP-like "tuning phase," but we called that "beta." I think MVP generates more useful feedback, but I really don't like thinking of an MVP as "shipping software."
I also worked for hardware companies, where shipping stuff had some pretty serious stakes, and learned how to make sure we got it as good as possible, before getting it out the door.
I like the idea of evolutionary design, and "tuning," but I think it's a bad idea (for me) to deliberately ship bad software as an end-product.
(Also, MVP, by definition, generates lots of trouble tickets. I am allergic to trouble tickets. It's totally a personal thing, but I live by it).
saying "MVP doesn't count" implies that you throw it away and then right "the perfect system" at some point. If you've ever had an MVP land you know that's not how it happens.
I write "as close to perfect" as I can get. I know that "The Perfect is the enemy of the good" is a popular meme, but I have found that "The perfect is something to strive for" has been useful, for me.
In fact, my way has been working for me, for decades.
I'm quite aware that many folks do it differently, and that's one reason that I try to "keep it in the I," and write about how I do it, and talk about the bar that I set, for myself.
Most of the software I write, is free software that Serves a pretty small demographic. It can have a fairly outsize influence on the lives of the people that use my software, and I really care about the end-users of my work, so I tend to set a pretty high personal bar.
I'm quite aware that I don't have many of the stressors that beset commercial software houses, so I sincerely don't feel "snooty." In fact, I feel profoundly grateful to be in a position, where I can follow my muse.
I really would like it if folks wrote better stuff, but I am also aware of the culture, and how that's next to impossible, these days.
It's not really some words, it's more like you won't be able to get more than a page out of it and even that is going to be so wrong it's basically a parody and thus allowed.
I’d love to see you try to defend this notion in court. Parody requires deliberate intent to be humorous. And courts have repeatedly held that changing the words of a copyrighted work while keeping the same general meaning can still be copyright infringement.
It's not just "changing some words". The majority of words will be different, sentences will be different. The general meaning might be generally the same, but I don't think that's enough to claim copyright protection.
I’m sorry for assuming that you were (though you could have mentioned this in your reply). Most of the large AI companies relevant to our discussion are based in the US.
I suspect that most of the large AI companies relevant to this discussion will remain based in the US.
Most of the money is in the US, China, and the EU. China won't allow any LLM that accidentally says mean things about their government, the EU is worried about AI that may harm individuals by libelling them.
The Chinese models may well completely ignore western laws, but if they're on the other side of the Great Firewall, or indeed just have Chinese-language UIs and a focus on Chinese-language tokens in the training… well, I'm not 100% confident, but I would be somewhat surprised if, say, JK Rowling was upset upon discovering that western users attempting to pirate her works via a Chinese chatbot were getting a version of Harry Potter that begins with the title literally being "赫奇帕奇巫师石（哈利·波特与魔法石）" (as ChatGPT just told me the Chinese version starts. Google Translate claims the first three characters are "Hufflepuff").
Even if the rules aren't any harder (as I'm not a lawyer, I can't tell if the differences in copyright rules will or won't make a huge difference in compliance costs), it's likely easier for American companies to lobby the American government for what they want done to make business easier.
Fair, when someone says torrenting I assume bidirectionality, but they may have blocked outgoing packets in order to comply with some interpretation of the law.
Given that llama was originally “leaked” via torrent, I have this assumption that meta folks are Pirates in spirit tho, and wouldn’t leech without being told explicitly, but then, being told not to upload would be legally perilous too since it would hint that they are aware of the illegality. Meta’s defense here seems to be “Officer I swear I didn’t know that wasn’t allowed”, testing the legal theory of transforming copyrighted work.
