I’ve been told that Artemis Fowl in the books is actually a nice and smart person. In the movie he comes across as an arrogant dick for a larger part.

Which is likely true, but kinda weird to me. I do not have a tendency to select the movies I watch based on the actors. But I assume that isn’t true for most folks. I mean apparently.

How does that make it better?

Nah it doesn’t. He is being a dick. You probably can Google that. He missed the point of the entire topic. Nobody was positing how to remove it because this topic wasn’t about that. If someone would have asked about it in the first place people would probably have provided solutions.

It’s about it being annoying or not. Microsoft is in a market position where they can leverage their different departments to heavily upsell you on other services. They have an unfair advantage that shifts the entire market to their favor, thus making it hard for any competitor to keep up or even enter the market.

E.g. they use every service / product they have to integrate Bing, they artificially limit the use of their chat bot to Microsoft Edge, they show Bing advertisements when you visit their competitors sites, they allow you to use Teams for free under certain conditions (if you already bought other products), they use their foot in the door with Microsoft Office / Windows go upsell you on Azure, …, Game Pass, …

I can go on and on. Some of them aren’t necessarily bad on their own. Some are. It paints a pattern of what Microsoft used to be. They actively used their position to try and create market conditions that would break their competitors or make it at least hard for them to even compete. About 15 years ago a lot of folks believed Microsoft had changed and were playing fair (in certain bounds), they invested a lot into open source and were generally a more friendly company. What we are currently witnessing is them going back to their old ways of doing things. Slowly tying everything back together. Probably under the assumption that this time the governments are sleeping and not really regulating it anymore. A lot of that is happening in the somewhat non-regulated cloud market anyways.

It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.

Well. When I copy and paste source code into my program and compile it it also doesn’t retain the actual code. It’s still not allowed.

If I on the other hand read source code, remember and reapply it in a sort of similar way later on then that’s totally fine. But that’s not what OpenAI did there. There wasn’t a human involved that read the articles and then used that knowledge to adjust the LLM.

There question i would have is where is the line there? Does that mean that as soon as there is some automated process that uses the data it’s fine?

E.g. could I have a script that reads all NYT articles, extracts interesting information and provides them in a different format to users?

But they aren’t forming take aways from it. They literally used that material to build this system. I also cannot just go around and take arbitrary data from anywhere and use it to build my own program. There are licenses attached to it and I have to be mindful of who’s work I can use to build my system and who’s I can’t use without explicit permission.

Building this system isn’t looking at other folks material and forming take aways from it. It’s literally using that material as input for building the system.

Might be a fundamental difference in opinion. I don’t see us anywhere near anything related to artificial life.

What they’ve built there is a product, a computer program and they used other folks data to build it without getting their permission. I also cannot go and just copy and paste source code from all over the internet to build my program. There are licenses attached to it that determine what you can or can’t do with it.

I feel like just because the term “learning” is involved people no longer view it as simply building or programming a system. Which it is.

But there is no one learning from it. It serves as a building block / source material to build these LLMs. I feel like the fact that it’s called learning gives folks the impression that it’s similar to what a human would do.

This comparison doesn’t make sense to me. If the person then makes money off it: yes.

Otherwise the question would be if copyright law should be abolished entirely. E.g. if I create a new news portal with content copied form other source, would that be okay then?

You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

I think what becomes clear when watching a lot of videos is that Linus is more of a tech fanboy that is good at all the high level stuff and can sell it in an entertaining way. He is not however someone who is super into the weeds of a specific technology, tool or system beyond applying his „I’ve worked with technology before“ knowledge.

They have other folks on the show for that.

It that being said. I wouldn’t fault him for his experience with PopOS!. That was totally on the OS and not his fault.

One thing though: I’m likely not to stop and consider looking closer at an app if I can’t judge if it’s going to be what I’m looking for. I’m not going to go over random GitHub repositories and create screenshots for their projects. So if the assumption is that the user contributes screenshots I don’t think it will ever change anything for the majority of projects.

Same. Found it to be better with some and worse work others. With some of those where it provides worse results compared to ChatGPT it just feels like it’s missing the fine tuning. It provides pretty similar results as when ChatGPT 3.5 came out a while ago. People just tend to forget about it.

It’s not very far away from injecting it into a webpage though. I feel like at this point it wouldn’t make any difference. Except on a meta level.

Just wait until they open a little popup or sidebar with bing search results every time you search on Google, DuckDuckGo or whatever competitor.

Don’t you think it’s different if Google says this on their own sites vs Microsoft showing this when visiting their competitors?

Both isn‘t good. But I feel like one of those is clearly worse.

Oh I still remember the outrage when Android added support for allowing Carries to block this a few years ago. But the Google folks just said „works as intended“ and proceeded.

No, not really. At least not in the real world. In their own little crypto fanboy universe: yes of course.

Then they shouldn’t be advocating for it. Their post might sound nice, but in reality the situation is like me proposing that we should build cars out of sugar. Then someone comes along and asks „but what if it rains?“.

Now you might be thinking „this is a stupid idea in the first place“ or at the very least „well that’s a good question“. But not „wow that’s a really cool idea and op put in their best, rational arguments. People shouldn’t be poking holes in it“.

Now depending on how familiar your are with the entire technology you might not be realizing that op has been asking to build cars out of sugar in the first place. But that’s another topic then.

What you describe as idealism is a dystopian world for most people. Holy hell. Apart from it leaving out all the nitty gritty details of reality. Also apart from this being entirely possible without blockchain.