I think he implies that because one can borrow hypothetically any book for free from a library, one could use them for legal training purposes, so the requirement of having your own copy should be moot
Libraries aren’t just anarchist free for alls they are operating under licensing terms. Google had a big squabble with the university of Illinois Urbana Champaign research library before finally getting permission to scan the books there. Guess what, Google has the full text but books.google.com only shows previews, why is an exercise to the reader literally
Libraries are neither anarchist free for alls nor are they operating under licensing terms with regards to physical books.
They're merely doing what anyone is allowed to with the books that they own, loaning them out, because copyright law doesn't prohibit that, so no license is needed.
Yup. And if Anthropic CEO or whoever wants to drive down to the library and check out 30 books (or whatever the limit is), scan them, and then return them that is their prerogative I guess.
There are no terms and conditions attached to library books beyond copyright law (which says nothing about scanning) and the general premise of being a library (return the book in good condition on time or pay).
Copyright law in the USA may be more liberal about scanning than other jurisdictions (see the parallel comment from gpm), which expressly regulate the amount of copying of material you do not own as an item.
The jurisdictions I'm familiar with all give vague fair use/fair dealing exceptions which would cover some but not all copying (including scanning) with less than clear boundaries.
I'd be interested to know if you knew of one with bright line rules delineating what is and isn't allowed.
(I know by practice but not from the letter of the law; to give you details I should do some research and it will take time - if I will manage to I will send you an email, but I doubt I will be able to do it soon. The focus is anyway on western European Countries.)
I really don’t think there’s any demand out there for re-bound used paper books when most books can be had in their real binding for $3 or less. It would cost at least $3 to re-bind, then they’d have to be listed on Amazon marketplace in “Poor condition” where they’d be valued at maybe $0.50 and cost $3 to ship, and they’d take years of warehousing at great expense waiting to be sold.
As for needy people, they already have libraries and an endless stream of books being donated to thrift stores.
Nothing of value was lost here.
To be fair, a book is fundamentally a wear item. I remember learning how my university library had its own incinerator. After a certain point it makes no sense to have 30 copies of an outdated textbook taking up space in the racks. Same goes for beatup old fiction and what have you. One might think a little urban school or branch library might want some but they too deal with realities of shelf space constraints and would probably prefer that their patrons had materials more current or in better shape.
That being said, I’m sure these companies did not exclusively buy books at the end of their life.
Books are printed in very large quantities, and there isn't infinite warehousing space for them "just in case." Surplus books just get sent straight to recycling all the time to make room for new books. I would be surprised if while this project was running, it represented even 10% of the daily books being destroyed. It's just never been practical to save every book printed forever.
Closed source, without 3rd party independent review and people should just trust you? As if your app cannot start sending data away in a month or attempt to detect monitoring software, to name a couple
> no other PC or mobile phone manufacturer is providing warranty service (for consumer hardware) that remotely matches Apple's.
Maybe, but Apple is also among the worst companies for repairability of their hardware. If a PC (which you mention) breaks is usually only one part to be replaced (without looking at actual repairs), and any individual with necessary know-how can do it
Those are two separate issues. The claim is that you’re paying for Apple to repair or replace your goods if a problem arises, and they’re more than capable of doing that.
Not that people are obligated to use IntelliJ IDEs, but it's sad that it boils down to "You can have privacy if you can afford it". But admittedly is better to have the option to use it than not being able to use it at all
Their telemetry promises not to collect private data. Yes, your code will probably used for training their models. But so it would be if you publish it on GitHub.
All data on my computer is private unless I specifically make it public. Data thieves like to make a rhetorical sleight of hand where they say they're not really collecting data about you (this happens especially with the topic of "differential privacy"), but that's just gaslighting (i.e. trying to manipulate you into thinking you simply don't understand what they are doing). e.g. I'm not willing to share noisy correlations about my preferences either. That information is private, and it is information, or they wouldn't want it.
My privacy is indeed differential. I am willing to give them the information on my coding patterns and even non-commercial code for a free license, if it is not linked to my identity. This is a fair exchange. I am not willing to do this if they will use this information to sell me ads, or sell it (unless properly anonymized) to some other company. And most certainly I won't agree if they collect any information beyond what's happen in the IDE.
Not _everything_ I do on my computer is fully private. I apply much stricter standards to things that are _really_ private. But not everything is like this.
This comment is public. It will probably be used to train yet another LLM. I am fine with that.
Sure, but as I said elsewhere, it's still important that people point out that past the headline ("it's free") is that it is also malware (it spies on you). People were free to not use BonziBuddy as well, but it was rightfully characterized at the time as spyware. If the product also functioned as a proxy for botnet traffic, you wouldn't simply say "well you're free to not use it". You'd say "beware, the 'free' version is malware". Spyware is similar.
Posting to a public online forum is of course specifically making the post public.
> > It’s important to note that, if you’re using a non-commercial license, you cannot opt out of the collection of anonymous usage statistics. We use this information to improve our products.
> Well, it's basically true for MS-branded VSCode too. I now use VSCodium.
How's that "basically true"? That's false. You can opt out. In fact there's very good documentation around that
Personally, I think it's a shame that JetBrains get such flack for collecting telemetry in their free products when Microsoft do the same in VS Code with hardly anyone voicing the same level of criticism for it.
A couple questions:
- any thought about wake word engines, to have something that listen without consuming all the time? The landscape for open solutions doesn't seem good
- any plan to allow using external services for stt/tts for the people who don't have a 4090 ready (at the cost of privacy and sass providers)?
FWIW, wake words are a stopgap; if we want to have a Star Trek level voice interfaces, where the computer responds only when you actually meant to call it, as opposed to using the wake word as a normal word in the conversation, the computer needs to be constantly listening.
A good analogy here is to think of the computer (assistant) as another person in the room, busy with their own stuff but paying attention to the conversations happening around them, in case someone suddenly requests their assistance.
This, of course, could be handled by a more lightweight LLM running locally and listening for explicit mentions/addressing the computer/assistant, as opposed to some context-free wake words.
Home Assistant is much nearer to this than other solutions.
You have a wake word, but it can also speak to you based on automations. You come home and it could tell you that the milk is empty, but with a holiday coming up you probably should go shopping.
If the AI is local, it doesn't need to be on an internet connected device. At that point, malware and bugs in that stack don't add extra privacy risks* — but malware and bugs in all your other devices with microphones etc. remain a risk, even if the LLM is absolutely perfect by whatever standard that means for you.
* unless you put the AI on a robot body, but that's then your own new and exciting problem.
> Waymo is limited to few specific locations with decent roads and does not drive in poor weather
the study is comparing Waymo to accidents occurred in the same cities where Waymo operates, and my understanding is that Waymo drives 7 days a week, 24h a day in those cities, so same roads, same weather. Seems a legit comparison
Also there is some sort of bias not accounted for: People drive when most people drive and most people are stuck in the most dangerous area: traffic. Waymo driving at night on empty streets is not a good indicator for accident prevention when measured against the average human, who is stuck mostly in traffic.
Why do you believe Waymo's miles are from driving at night on empty streets? They drive when there's rideshare demand, a majority of which occurs during daytime and in the busiest areas of a city. They are no less stuck in traffic than the average human.
Love it, it's brilliant, but I think the rate limiting logic is not doing what the author really wants, it actually costs more cpu to detect and produce the error than returning the regular response (then my mind goes on how to actually over optimize this thing, but that's another story :-D )
