No, that kinda is right - under special relativity, as your apparent velocity from a fixed reference frame increases, it takes more and more energy to accelerate closer to light speed, so _moving_ faster than light is disallowed.
Another way of putting this is: we know because of special relativity that you can't just strap a lot of rocket boosters on a spaceship and expect to go faster than light. That won't work; if you want to _travel_ faster than light, you have to do it another way.
For a particle travelling faster than light (a tachyon) it takes more and more energy to decelerate the closer to light speed you are, and at zero energy velocity would be infinite. At least via a naïve look at what SR says.
Allowing the foreigner from a country with no reciprocal permission for us to build in their country works against this though. They're sucking capital out of their country which in the example used of Russia/China would build several more housing units and instead building fewer units in the US. Couple this with lack of reciprocity and what you did was a relative loss in housing potential.
We need to be forcing reciprocity to make sure we're actually maximizing available housing.
>I would simply avoid having a housing crisis by allowing people to build more housing. Seems pretty win-win to me.
The housing crisis is primarily driven by wealth inequality and poor financial decisions by the US government. Not building is a secondary problem.
I'm all for building more and denser housing, but if all the units are snatched by banks and wealthy investors, its not going to make the country more affordable.
It's bizarre. I live in Chicago and don't have to deal with anything like this. The West coast has a really strange set of blinkers on about these problems.
I spend a lot of time in Chicago and always find it safe and pleasant. Yet when I talk to some people, typically of a conservative persuasion, they describe it as an urban hellscape in the same way some posters here describe SF or Portland.
A failed city that people are fleeing, with impossibly high taxes, no remaining police, rife with crime, and with corrupt bureaucrats suckling on the government teat at every turn.
I can't square the circle. I know so many people in Chicago and it doesn't seem like they're even describing the same city.
So when I see these hit pieces against the governments on the west coast, and hear anecdotes from west coast Republicans fleeing to the south to escape their purported failures, I take them with a massive gain of salt.
I have no doubt that Portland has its issues, but I can't take these pieces very seriously. As with the mythical failed version of Chicago I keep hearing about, I suspect there is a group of people pushing an extreme version of a narrative that is only loosely based in reality.
As you can see, Portland proper is nearly entirely Democrat. I'm a registered Democrat as well (I'm OP). Prior to this I lived in San Jose. Portland is a lovely city, but talking about what's going on here doesn't make folks Republican.
I have the same reaction to stories about Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco policing. The impression I get is that these cities have deeply mismanaged police departments.
What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set?
I am not a lawyer but I don't really see the "it's not fair use" argument.
> What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set?
What's the difference between retelling someone's story orally, and using a printing press to make an exact replica?
What's the difference between writing down a conversation from memory, and recording that conversation?
What's the difference between making a nude painting of someone, and taking a nude photograph?
What's the difference between going out in public among human beings, and going out in public where there's a facial recognition camera on every corner feeding everyone's movements into a centralized database?
What's the difference between the grandma who knows everyone in the village, vs the social media company that knows everyone in the world?
Social customs evolved in a context of fundamental, sharp limits to human cognition and skill. When technology smashes through those limits, those social customs don't work anymore. Copyright law didn't exist in a world where you couldn't copy things mechanically. If you apply the old rules naively, you end up with a nasty world that nobody wants. So we have to invent new rules to limit how people use the new technology, otherwise people get exploited and life becomes intolerable.
"What does copyright law say about this" doesn't even make sense as a question. Copyright was invented before AI was. The question should be, "what would a society someone would want to live in, say about this?"
> What's the difference between retelling someone's story orally, and using a printing press to make an exact replica?
But that's not what's happening. You can't "crack open" a model to find the bitmap of a piece of training data. It's not there any more than a painting you've seen is "in" your brain. A model sometimes creates things that look similar to existing pieces if it got a ton of copies of the same image, for the same reason that most people's artistic rendition of a tree is going to be more accurate than their rendition of an anteater.
The entire AI art debate is a symptom of the fact that society is structured such that labor-saving technological advancements can harm more people than they help, and it's baffling to see otherwise intelligent and ideologically similar people fixating on this single, relatively minor technology rather than the much more consequential, broader issue of the fact that automation always moves wealth into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people.
That was a fact during the industrial revolution and it’s quite possible it will happen now with the digital revolution.
The average height of Englishmen actually went down during the industrial rev. presumably due to malnutrition. New histories of the period think of it as potentially as one of the few times we know where there was an enormous economic boom alongside a general collapse of quality of life.
>But that's not what's happening. You can't "crack open" a model to find the bitmap of a piece of training data. It's not there any more than a painting you've seen is "in" your brain. A model sometimes creates things that look similar to existing pieces if it got a ton of copies of the same image, for the same reason that most people's artistic rendition of a tree is going to be more accurate than their rendition of an anteater.
In other words, a technology that has never existed before and doesn't follow any of the categories and schemas we dreamt up to organize the world. So we need to make new rules.
For humans the inspiration can be something else than the medium to use. Watching reality can provide inspiration for creating a video. And I'm pretty sure that's wher most inspiration comes from. It cannot for AI. Of course in a world where everything exists AI doesn't need inspiration from other sources.
Then what was it saying? It said that humans can take inspiration from outside art, from the real world. You can do the same thing with AI by training it on pictures from the real world.
Always back to the same debate then.
Why aren't human minds glorified functions, that perhaps deserve their glory a bit more than current state of AI?
Obviously they're not currently equivalent. But obviously there are similarities.
If I can take copyrighted images and feed them into an AI, why can’t I take any code I find online and ignore the license terms and feed it into a compiler? How do you justify the existence of something like the GPL?
Is it ok to scan copyrighted works. I think Google Books' win at the Supreme Court shows that yes it is.
Is it ok to process them down to the rawest information?
Is it ok for people to generate content from the raw information (and ok for them to charge for it)?
The last two I don't have an answer for, but I understand the fear of artists and the anger that their hard work is being shovelled into the monster that is going affect their work. But also more broadly the make-up industry, the lighting industry, studio spaces, lens makers, paint manufacturers, etc etc etc.
> why can’t I take any code I find online and ignore the license terms and feed it into a compiler?
a compiler is not transformative. You translating a book into another language doesn't make it a new work.
But an AI that takes billions of images, and uses it to synthesize something different and new, is fairly transformative under my eyes, and deserves new copyright. Unless the AI generated image is largely composed of a small number of works, i don't see why anyone should have copyright ownership of such an output!
its actually exactly the same thing, the ai doesnt "synthetize" anything, its following its programming and data based on training sets
if anything I would argue that human taking code from multiple places and making it compile into something more useful is much more synthetiz-ing than AI...
What's the difference between a programmer looking at lots of open source code and github copilot looking at open source code? (And I'm talking MIT licensed code here).
Does CPSC not have the authority to fine Amazon or otherwise get them to stop selling these things? That seems like it would be much more effective than a post on a website.
These rankings consistently tell people that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc are the best schools in the country. Why would they boycott rankings that praise them?
The Ivies rank 1, (UNLISTED), 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 17. All of the "less desirable, non-elite schools" are listed BELOW these schools, which keeps them looking good.
This is pretty straightforward to explain without any nefarious things going on:
* You don't need to take out a loan to exercise your options until you vest some options, which would typically take a least a year
* Bolt grew really quickly and so had a high % of employees with low tenure
* The layoffs disproportionally affected newer employees, which is extremely common and reasonable
If the people laid off were mostly people hired within the last year who had no reason to take out the loan yet, then you'd get a result like what we saw.
(All that said -- these loans are an absolutely terrible idea and I think offering them is irresponsible.)
This is exactly right. You have to disclose risks to your business and if a really big part of your growth is coming from a new, volatile customer base, that's a big risk and you should disclose it. It has nothing to do with a specific requirement for GPUs or something; publicly traded companies _in general_ have a responsibility to understand where their revenue comes from and disclose that understanding to the public.
This is very run-of-the-mill stuff for the SEC. I think the only reason it's getting play on HN is that, if you aren't familiar with this sort of thing, it looks like the SEC is picking on Nvidia for doing business with crypto miners. But that isn't what the complaint is actually about.
What's surprising to me about this, is that if you ever read the risk section of a 10-k it is basically a bunch of non sense, where they imagine every possible risk no matter how small a business might have. It's filled with so many low probability scenarios it's barely worth reading. If they put in a blurb about this in the risks section I'm not sure who would even notice.
At first glance, I suspect that they just copy pasted the risk section from the last 10-k and this was just some mistake rather than an intention to deceive. Anybody who knew anything about the business understood that crypto mining was a sizable part of that demand.
I wouldn't say it's "exactly right" because the investors knew that's where the growth was coming from. Just because it wasn't in the 10-K doesn't mean that investors didn't know it was a risk.
The implication is how it holds for the most recent cryptomining cycle, since this settlement was for 2018 and we've definitely seen another surge in demand in 2021. Coupled with the chip shortage, this most recent cycle could well be bigger than this 2018 one.
Nvidia arguably hedged their bets better this time by 1) releasing their cryptomining-specific versions of GPUs, and 2) releasing drivers that tried to cripple the mining performance on the GeForce 3000-series lineup. But whether this was done in good faith is debatable and whether they disclosed properlyin the eyes of the SEC will be interesting to see.
What? The premise is very clear - NVIDIA stock has seen a meteoric rise off hugely increased sales, investors are concerned that nvidia is hiding the share of sales attributed specifically to a new volatile demographic (crypto in this case).
It’s like if Intel had 50% of their business from Apple and investors wanted to predict the impact of the M1 chip on their sales.
Kipnis was also subject to several rounds of retaliatory Title IX investigations simply for publicly objecting to Ludlow's treatment, all of which eventually exonerated her. It's hard to think of someone more qualified to critique the issues with Title IX and the culture of campus inquisitions.
Kipnis clearly doesn't think much of the Ewell paper, but I don't think her point centers on its contents; it's more that someone collected and published scholarly responses to the paper, and the social media pushback against these responses led to a grad student narcing on his professor and the professor losing funding, the journal, etc. That, to me, is not a healthy dynamic for a university to run on.
edit: Actually let me go a step further and agree with you a bit - I think Kipnis's point would be more clearly made if she didn't make her own perspective on the merits of the Ewell paper such a big part of that section of the article.
AIUI, a lot of the pushback on those responses was due to how they were collected and published. The call for responses was mostly circulated privately among pro-Schenkerian scholars, and the broader profession only got to know about it at the last minute. And the author of the original paper was given no opportunity to provide a rejoinder.
I'm not even sure that the actual written paper had even been published at that time: the basic arguments of the paper were first summarized in a conference presentation, and of course it is terrible form to publish a purported critique of something that hasn't even been fully presented in full detail! The whole thing has really reflected pretty badly on the authors of these 'critiques', for very good reasons overall.
Another way of putting this is: we know because of special relativity that you can't just strap a lot of rocket boosters on a spaceship and expect to go faster than light. That won't work; if you want to _travel_ faster than light, you have to do it another way.