

Antitrust is the right approach. (As opposed to copyright.) I hope Google gets decimated.
Antitrust is the right approach. (As opposed to copyright.) I hope Google gets decimated.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
I believe two contradictory things here:
If you were born during the first industrial revolution, then you’d think the mind was a complicated machine. People seem to always anthropomorphize inventions of the era.
Citation Needed (by Molly White) also frequently bashes AI.
I like her stuff because, no matter how you feel about crypto, AI, or other big tech, you can never fault her reporting. She steers clear of any subjective accusations or prognostication.
It’s all “ABC person claimed XYZ thing on such and such date, and then 24 hours later submitted a report to the FTC claiming the exact opposite. They later bought $5 million worth of Trumpcoin, and two weeks later the FTC announced they were dropping the lawsuit.”
I’ve been assured that AGI is right around the corner and will solve climate change (in a way that is economically palatable to the rich and powerful)
I think one of the most toxic things on Lemmy is the prevalence of judging normies for using incredibly popular services and ascribing it to a character defect instead of life just being too complex for most people to be able to prioritize exploring more ethical technology choices.
Canada should back out of the USMCA and stop respecting US IP
Well, Pakistan isn’t exactly a leader in world peace either…
Which Country Is The Greatest Threat to World Peace?
The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat.
I often want to know the status code of a curl
request, but I don’t want that extra information to mess with the response body that it prints to stdout.
What to do?
Render an image instead, of course!
curlcat
takes the same params as curl
, but it uses iTerm2’s imgcat
tool to draw an “HTTP Cat” of the status code.
It even sends the image to stderr instead of stdout, so you can still pipe curlcat
to jq
or something.
#!/usr/bin/env zsh
stdoutfile=$( mktemp )
curl -sw "\n%{http_code}" $@ > $stdoutfile
exitcode=$?
if [[ $exitcode == 0 ]]; then
statuscode=$( cat $stdoutfile | tail -1 )
if [[ ! -f $HOME/.httpcat$statuscode ]]; then
curl -so $HOME/.httpcat$statuscode https://http.cat/$statuscode
fi
imgcat $HOME/.httpcat$statuscode 1>&2
fi
cat $stdoutfile | ghead -n -1
exit $exitcode
Note: This is macOS-specific, as written, but as long as your terminal supports images, you should be able to adapt it just fine.
We have mistaken rationality for a philosophy rather than a methodology, and efficiency for a virtue without any particular end in mind.
To have a unique, personal, subjective, divergent human experience is to sin against your prescribed algorithm.
We have mistaken rationality for a philosophy rather than a methodology, and efficiency for a virtue without any particular end in mind.
To have a unique, personal, subjective, divergent human experience is to sin against your prescribed algorithm.
Technical term is a loppitoffamy
If you’re a trucker on CB radio, you could overtake the underundertaker, over.
Don’t Stop Me Now
Maybe do though.
Polluting the sky in order to pollute the internet 👌
Yes, that’s a good addition.
Overall, my point was not that scraping is a universal moral good, but that legislating tighter boundaries for scraping in an effort to curb AI abuses is a bad approach.
We have better tools to combat this, and placing new limits on scraping will do collateral damage that we should not accept.
And at the very least, the portfolio value of Disney’s IP holdings should not be the motivating force behind AI regulation.
I’d say that scraping as a verb implies an element of intent. It’s about compiling information about a body of work, not simply making a copy, and therefore if you can accurately call it “scraping” then it’s always fair use. (Accuse me of “No True Scotsman” if you would like.)
But since it involves making a copy (even if only a temporary one) of licensed material, there’s the potential that you’re doing one thing with that copy which is fair use, and another thing with the copy that isn’t fair use.
Take archive.org for example:
It doesn’t only contain information about the work, but also a copy (or copies, plural) of the work itself. You could argue (and many have) that archive.org only claims to be about preserving an accurate history of a piece of content, but functionally mostly serves as a way to distribute unlicensed copies of that content.
I don’t personally think that’s a justified accusation, because I think they do everything in their power to be as fair as possible, and there’s a massive public benefit to having a service like this. But it does illustrate how you could easily have a scenario where the stated purpose is fair use but the actual implementation is not, and the infringing material was “scraped” in the first place.
But in the case of gen AI, I think it’s pretty clear that the residual data from the source content is much closer to a linguistic analysis than to an internet archive. So it’s firmly in the fair use category, in my opinion.
Edit: And to be clear, when I say it’s fair use, I only mean in the strict sense of following copyright law. I don’t mean that it is (or should be) clear of all other legal considerations.
It’s a combination of: