Carnivores tend to sleep longer than omnivores, who tend to sleep longer than herbivores. For a hunting carnivore, energy comes in big bursts, so it makes sense that they would be active for a short period of time, and hoard energy when they didn't need to be active. For a cud-chewing herbivore, time spent not chewing is time spent not creating energy.
Obviously, this is a broad generalization - feeding habits, day/night cycles, predator/prey behaviors all factor into a particular animal. But it probably explains why your cat, like the panther at the zoo, spends most of its time asleep.
They do, in fact, have humans who check to make sure that everyone starts behind the starting line. And both humans and computers which check to make sure that nobody starts early.
Two notes on "starts early." One - start is any visible bodily movement, not the crossing of the start-line. So any flinch, whether in the direction of the start-line or not, is a false start. Two - if you start inside of 0.1 seconds of the start-gun, it is declared a false start, since the assumption is that no human can react faster than that.
The precision at the start is quite high!
I am an author. While 99% of "ordinary people" are not authors, 99% of authors are "ordinary people".
Under your moral logic, everyone should just be free to pirate/steal any creative work, as why shouldn't the un-talented (or un-trained, or un-dedicated) have equal rights to the works.
All this leads to a case where there is no longer an incentive to create and popularize creative work, and suddenly all that is available are AI rehashes of AI summaries. I, for one, don't look forward to such a marketplace of non-ideas.
LLMs don't steal/pirate works, "copying" is the word you're looking for. So much faster, cheaper and precise to copy than to use LLMs. What LLMs do is to combine user information with patterns learned from data. Almost never a full work, they rarely generate more than 1000 words at once. Books are 100x larger
If "laundering" IP is made illegal, then we're all in for a huge surprise. Almost everything we say and do has been said and done before. And we're rarely the originators of our main ideas, we "launder" 99.99% of what we know, even subconsciously. Any one human could be suspected of secretly using AI today.
Copyright laws didn't need to be invented until the printing press came along, because the act of copying was slow and difficult.
Not a fan of the patent model for software, for example, but perhaps this is an argument for it. Or, we just get used to the fact that idea-reuse is cost-free, accept a couple of decades of uncomfortable economic dislocation, and get on with it.
> there is no longer an incentive to create and popularize creative work
It's reasonable to be worried about this scenario. If there was no incentive to produce creative work, our society would be much worse.
But the notion that there's only one way to prevent this scenario, and it requires a drastic expansion of the already sweeping "intellectual property" regime...well it just lacks creativity.
It's not that we want to eliminate the incentive to be creative, it's that we believe there are better ways to prevent that scenario than to further entrench a broken system.
You give me your creative work for free. What I do with texts in my computer is my business, not yours. Don't like it? Stop publishing your creative work online. There is nothing being stolen.
This is strange logic that ignores the idea of copyright. Just because I allow you to view my work for free does not mean I relinquish copyright protection. If I write a song that I perform for free, it doesn’t give you license to record and sell that song, for example.
> This is strange logic that ignores the idea of copyright
What is strange in ignoring the idea of copyright?
If you write a song and I can play it in my computer, I use it the way I want in my computer. If you don't want that, don't make your work public. Copyright is a men's creation, nobody is forced to respect it.
The code I develop can be accessed for free in github and even in the browser "view source", I won't be fighting for other people to have the right to force others to pay for using their creation while they don't pay for mine and all other open source and open science creations.
Yes, copyright is a convention. It’s subject to change. However, IP protections are written into the US Constitution and the bar to change it is relatively high.
Murder is also a crime by convention, there’s no natural law against it. But we generally recognize that to live in a stable society, we must live by certain conventions.
You can play a song on your computer because that is considered appropriate use. You selling tickets to play it, or to copy it and sell it is not because they conceivably limit the authors ability to make money from their creation.
You may not realize it but software is also covered by copyright. For most intents and purposes, it’s considered the worlds worst book; you cannot legally copy and sell it if the license doesn’t allow it.
AI changes the rules here, because AI is able to automate extracting structure/meaning, and launder it of its origins.
In classical copyright, fair use allows certain.. fair uses. Going beyond that is considered stealing. You can chop things up into small parts, and there are rules governing how you can put the pieces back together and claim them wholly or partly as your own work.
LLMs behave more like a solvent. Everything goes in the pot, gets melted down, and by the time it's recast you can't say for sure where anything came from or who it once belonged to. Even if sometimes you might get a strong whiff.
Just adding to what Greg mentioned: if you want to learn more about StarRocks or have any questions, feel free to reach out to us in the StarRocks community on Slack: https://try.starrocks.com/join-starrocks-on-slack.
First, your work day is almost completely sedentary. Second, you are not near friends, gyms, fields, or other systems which promote healthy activity outside of work. While diet is important for all of us, it is especially important in this circumstance.
"Healthy foods" are going to be largely inaccessible through long sparsely-populated stretches of the country. Even where they are available - in markets, fruit stands, etc. pulling your huge truck off the road to park is expensive (in terms of time) and difficult (in terms of space). Truck stops have the infrastructure for your truck. But their food selection is mostly junk.
The Bloomberg article makes the point that this could be a trend. It was not. I know of no other B-to-B Enterprise Software product which got close to that kind of revenue without hiring Sales.
Of course, there's no easy way of knowing how many companies tried this model and failed. But I don't think it was successful too often, because I hardly ever see this model any longer.
I've written four books. Each book is the result of thousands of hours of experience and hundreds of hours of work. My books are all over these sites, and have been used to train AI. Without my consent.
I didn't write books to make money - I've made the national bestseller list and still get paid < minimum wage for my writing time. But it is disrepectful to my time and expertise to use such pirated sites. You probably make money with your mind and your fingers and your creativity. Why wouldn't you take some tiny part of the money you make and use it to allow me to do the same.
And for those who say "its the same as a library" - libraries buy books. And lend them on a limited basis. Sites like this are just simple theft.
What I mean is that they provide enough information to pair your first-party data with "anonymous" web traffic matched to the account level with enough granularity to line up the two.
That said, most of the companies in this space massively over promise and under deliver. The one thing they all have in common is that they're good at ABM, so they can sell to your CMO/CRO faster than you can call them out on their bullshit.
