Anecdata of course, but my experience with Windows Hello is that it only works under perfect circumstances. Me just being positioned slightly differently in my chair is enough for it to not recognize me. As opposed to FaceID that has (for me) worked flawlessly for these past almost ten years.
This thread is full of people linking similar projects for different locations. The next step must be to combine it all to a global live map. Useful for... something, I'm sure.
We really need some open source project to manage all the shims across the world. Like in Seattle the WSDOT API has live ferry locations but they never made a GTFS feed for, so i made my own shim for it. I feel like there needs to be some way to make the data access easier for developers.
I think subway rail systems do have "real live location", but whether that information is consistently provided to public distribution for use through apps is a question mark.
I suspect most systems are a mix of your platinum, gold and silver (and kidding me).
Lots of systems have some sort of real location data, but it can be... shaky.
In Dublin, train 'realtime location' is, AIUI, based on arrival at stations plus time-based estimate. This _usually_ works okay. Buses have transponders which register when they pass a stop. Or, ah, well, buses usually have transponders, and those transponders sometimes work. New buses sometimes lack them, as do very old buses used for covering capacity problems. If a bus without a transponder is used, they seem to just estimate where it is based on the schedule, which is useless. If a bus without a transponder is inserted out of schedule (they sometimes do this at peak time) it's totally invisible to the realtime system. Sometimes, the transponder isn't picked up, and then the bus will appear to hang around for a while and then abruptly teleport a few stops forward. Sometimes, a bus's transponder doesn't seem to start working when the bus starts up for the first few stops.
Still, it's better than when I was a kid, when you really just had the printed schedule, assuming the rain hadn't gotten to it.
IANAL, but that's not quite true right? As per your own citation, återgivningsrätten gives the right to use any piece of art (not in digital form) in conjunction with a piece of critical text.
Seeing Miyazaki’s Pippi makes me so sad that we never got to see that movie. I’ve been reading a ton of Astrid Lindgren with my kid lately, and for many of them I see them in my mind’s eye as Myazaki films, and especially Pippi. Myazaki and Lindgren have a lot in common, I think, in how they tell stories from children’s perspectives. What we’ve got for Pippi movie adaptations instead are very poor things.
Bu that's not really what danlitt said, right? They did not claim that it's impossible for an LLM to generate something different, merely that it's not a clean room implementation since the LLM, one must assume, is trained on the code it's re-implementing.
BUt LLM has seen millions (?) of other code-bases too. If you give it a functional spec it has no reason to prefer any one of those code-bases in particular. Except perhaps if it has seen the original spec (if such can be read from public sources) associated with the old implementation, and the new spec is a copy of the old spec.
Yes if you are solving the exact problem that the original code solved and that original code was labeled as solving that exact problem then that’s very good reason for the LLM to produce that code.
Researchers have shown that an LLM was able to reproduce the verbatim text of the first 4 Harry Potter books with 96% accuracy.
> that an LLM was able to reproduce the verbatim text of the first 4 Harry Potter books with 96% accuracy.
Kinda weird argument, in their research (https://forum.gnoppix.org/t/researchers-extract-up-to-96-of-...) LLM was explicitly asked to reproduce the book. There are people that can do so without LLMs out there, by this logic everything they write is a copyright infringement an every book they can reproduce.
> Yes if you are solving the exact problem that the original code solved and that original code was labeled as solving that exact problem then that’s very good reason for the LLM to produce that code.
I think you're overestimating LLM ability to generalize.
The point about Harry Potter was just that the verbatim text for popular text in the training set is in there.
It’s the same as when you ask a model to generate an Italian plumber with overalls and it produces something close enough to Mario to be a copyright violation.
If you ask it to solve a very specific problem for which there is a solution well represented in its train set, you can definitely get back enough verbatim snippets to cause problems.
It’s also not a theoretical problem, you can Google for studies showing real world production of verbatim code with non-adversarial prompts.
This is not an argument against coding in a different language, though. It would be like having it restate Harry Potter in a different language with different main character names, and reshuffled plot points.
If you find a single paragraph that is a direct translation with different names that’s definitely enough for copyright infringement.
Reshuffling plot points is doing a lot of lifting here. Just looking at a specific chapter near the end of the book, if you change the the order of the trials, change the names, and translate it into a different language, you’re still going to have a very hard time arguing that what you’ve produced isn’t a derivative work.
It's definitively not the source of the word, but it might very well be the reason the decided to have a "fest i val". Gothenburg is famous for their puns, and even today they open up the mouth of the whale for visitors on two occasions - valdagen (election day) and Valborgsmässoafton (Walpurgis eve).
reply