What a sad, disappointing instinct. It completely divorced from reality to assume that "enjoy[ing] anything that comes from [the] USA" implies any sort of political allegiance to whoever happens to sit in the Oval office at that particular point in time.
There's no way you're "a big space fan" if the first thing you think of when you see a rocket launch that was announced 9 years is Donald Trump.
Not parent, but I am genuinely curious: is there a Hacker News browser extension you'd recommend? The text is so small by default that even though I'd like to read on my desktop, I typically only browse it via the Hacki android app.
I vibe-coded one using one of the web-based tools (I think Replit?) maybe a year and a half ago. Just added vote tracking by username, tagging, colored usernames, that sort of thing. Only took a on average 1-2 prompts per feature, I did it in under an hour start to finish.
It's only dishonest not to include Claude in commit/PR attribution if it's also dishonest not to include StackOverflow, or VSCode, or VIM, or Windows, or any of the other tools you used to complete the work!
That's a so invalid analogy, editors are effectively tools just like as a hammer because they require constant human input to produce something, the human is in constant control over the whole production process so they don't need to give attribution to the individual tools they used to build a house...
Unlike a black magic box where you just tell it to build something and it does all the production for you while you sit back.
Putting a book into a training data set does not take 100% of the value created by the author. You could make a convincing argument that since the LLM was never going to purchase the book, and the number of people who would have purchased the book but now won't because it's included in the training data is effectively zero, that no value was lost at all.
Licenses are legal documents and are usually treated as such, but "the creator's wishes" are irrelevant without case law, legislation, or licensing to back it up. And jurisdiction - show me a license that doesn't stand up in court in my home jurisdiction and I'll show you a license I won't care if I break or not.
I mean the comment says "contract" right there; you can easily be on a contract with multiple companies simultaneously. When I was freelancing full-time ca. 2010-2013 or so I often had 5-6 active contracts running simultaneously. I probably worked for 15-20 different companies total in that 3-4 year span.
Yes, likely, but make even less sense, as you can't except support for education as a freelancer. I mean a freelancers whole purpose is to sell skill and be gone when the job is finished. You are from the beginning just an expendable tool they don't want to polish outside the scope of the job.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone can say with a straight face "Nobody out here" (sic) taking their job seriously and giving it the care and attention it rightly deserves.
It seems like it's an active area of legal thought (IANAL though).
Recent relevant discussion about this in the chardet repo between the chardet maintainer who relicensed the chardet code and Richard Fontana, a well regarded lawyer US IP lawyer who's worked for Red Hat (now IBM) for decades:
My take away from the conversation there is that being in an edit loop, where the files are AI generated through your control rather than directly editing the files yourself, means the files are then "AI authored" for copyright protection purposes rather than yourself.
But I double stress, I'm not a lawyer so may have misunderstood things radically.
I think that may not be answerable until a case concerning it has been heard and ruled on. A lawyer may have a better answer for you, but if I had to bet then I'd put $100 on it being something like 'it depends'.
It's interesting how AI can be its own worst enemy in this legal system. The very thing it's excellent at is not protected. In practice, there seems to be a strong opportunity to disintermediate brands by acting as a layer of abstraction above the seller and manufacturer. An AI instruction likely cares less about brand or sharing customer information with the seller; it's just more friction and tokens spent.
I think its just a case of dealing with something that has no precedent. We have never had to determine what the line is between a tool and an employee when they can both be instructed with natural language. If we were to evaluate AI as if it were in a contract with us for use of its time and efforts in exchange for something of consideration, it would be an easy ruling. If we were to evaluate AI as if it were a tool which operates as an extension of the operators skill without any independent additions then it would be an easy ruling. But since we now have a tool that can produce results that are independent of our ability to produce them with any former class of tools, then we have to create entirely new models for how to map these tools into the complexity of real life conflicts where people have different goals and where we must decouple fairness from intentions.
I've heard people say this but it really only makes sense if you don't think about it for more than 10 or 20 seconds.
Prediction markets by definition always resolve to one side being completely wiped out and losing everything. Stocks going to zero happens pretty seldomly, in prediction markets it's guaranteed to happen every single time.
Prediction markets are not binary options. They are closer to a liquid equity option market (and most equity option markets aren't liquid at all). That means you can trade into and out of positions at any time and for different prices depending on where the market is. You can even do time spreads where you can't lose it all no matter what happens. Maybe your 10 or 20 seconds of thinking wasn't as perfect as you think since you don't seem to understand how prediction markets actually work.
That's only true if you leave your money in...which you don't have to do.
You can play prediction markets by betting on a swing. E.g. I made a few hundred dollars betting on Harris in 2024 when Trump was at ~65% odds and then selling before the election when it was closer to 50%.
> can play prediction markets by betting on a swing
The outcomes are still capped. In that respect, it's more like a derivative market than the stock market. You can trade in and out of options. But the value in the system is tightly defined and, after fees, a net negative-sum game.
There is a fee implicit in the market spread. It's formed out of the time value of money w.r.t. the cost of NOT trading as well as the adverse selection faced by those with standing offers.
There's no way you're "a big space fan" if the first thing you think of when you see a rocket launch that was announced 9 years is Donald Trump.
reply