It’s most often installed as HAOS, which is a dedicated operating system that just runs Home Assistant. That is how anyone installing it on say, a Raspberry Pi, is likely to do it.

Home Assistant as a project is far more popular than every single other consumer focused server and as such it is often the first home server (and sometimes only) that many consumers will experience.

Oooh what a cool edge lord. You’ve definitely thought this through.

The public praises the police when they stand around and let an armed man be well enough alone in a group of civilians! Everyone loves it when police do that right?

Like Jesus fucking Christ, what would you do? Leave a guy with a knife getting onto a crowded train and have two dozen people stabbed? It is naiive to think that there was a good outcome possible once you start making police bust fare skipping, but it is also absurdly naiive to think that the police can let a man with a knife get onto a New York train with just a ‘hey, try not to stab anyone’.

Lol, someone has never played a board game that involves strategy before I see.

If they had, three people would have avoided bullet wounds and one of them wouldn’t be in the ER right now.

And maybe a bunch of people would have been stabbed by the guy with a knife who just threatened to kill someone.

If you’ve ever ridden the subway in NYC, particularly during rush hour, the idea of firing a taser into a train full of people is absolutely crazy.

Again, they could be lying about the knife and the threat, but if he did have a knife and just threaten to kill someone it would be absolutely crazy to let him get on a subway train full of people.

I mean, this is arguably what them not hiding looks like.

They claim he made a threat. The article failed to print his side of the story for some curious reason. It isn’t printing any testimony from the bystanders, either.

Fair enough, supposedly they were wearing body cams so hopefully some of what actually happened can be answered objectively, I’m just pointing out what the article said. If he didn’t make a threat or have a knife, then tasering him is a wild escalation, it’s just that if he did, then the police can’t really just let him get on a train.

Cops will often lie about the danger of a suspect in order to justify elevating their use-of-force. That said, they weren’t that concerned by his unreasonableness when they deployed tasers into the crowd first. They didn’t switch to guns until they realized the tasers weren’t going to work.

Again, assuming what the article says is true, which is a big assumption, it’s not that crazy to taser a guy who just got onto a train with a knife and threatened to you. At that point you’re looking at a potential mass stabbing incident if you do nothing.

Again, who knows, maybe the cops are blowing his behaviour wildly out of proportion, I’m just saying that, based on the article, it sounds like he wasn’t just gunned down for jumping a turnstile.

I mean according to the article, technically they just tried to stop him over the $2.90 fare.

Then because of that he threatened to kill them and they realized he had a knife so they tasered him.

Then when that didn’t work and he ran at them with the knife they opened fire.

Multiple people are still dead because they brought guns into a disagreement over $2.90, but the headline implies a lot more unreasonableness on the individual cops’ parts as opposed to the overall policy.

The work is reproduced in full when it’s downloaded to the server used to train the AI model, and the entirety of the reproduced work is used for training. Thus, they are using the entirety of the work.

That’s objectively false. It’s downloaded to the server, but it should never be redistributed to anyone else in full. As a developer for instance, it’s illegal for me to copy code I find in a medium article and use it in our software. I’m perfectly allowed to read that Medium article, learn from it, and then right my own similar code.

And that makes it better somehow? Aereo got sued out of existence because their model threatened the retransmission fees that broadcast TV stations were being paid by cable TV subscribers. There wasn’t any devaluation of broadcasters’ previous performances, the entire harm they presented was in terms of lost revenue in the future. But hey, thanks for agreeing with me?

And Aero should not have lost that suit. That’s an example of the US court system abjectly failing.

And again, LLM training so egregiously fails two out of the four factors for judging a fair use claim that it would fail the test entirely. The only difference is that OpenAI is failing it worse than other LLMs.

That’s what we’re debating, not a given.

It’s even more absurd to claim something that is transformative automatically qualifies for fair use.

Fair point, but it is objectively transformative.

They did also combine it with A to get it to fly, but I would argue that it’s still pretty wildly far away from what we would think of as an Ironman suit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wEO-pHizQ&t=24s

Tell me you’ve never developed software without telling me you’ve never developed software.

A closed source binary that is copyrighted and illegal to use, is totally the same thing as a all the trained weights and underlying source code for a neural network published under the MIT license that anyone can learn from, copy, and use, however they want, right guys?

You said open source. Open source is a type of licensure.

The entire point of licensure is legal pedantry.

No. Open source is a concept. That concept also has pedantic legal definitions, but the concept itself is not inherently pedantic.

And as far as your metaphor is concerned, pre-trained models are closer to pre-compiled binaries, which are expressly not considered Open Source according to the OSD.

No, they’re not. Which is why I didn’t use that metaphor.

A binary is explicitly a black box. There is nothing to learn from a binary, unless you explicitly decompile it back into source code.

In this case, literally all the source code is available. Any researcher can read through their model, learn from it, copy it, twist it, and build their own version of it wholesale. Not providing the training data, is more similar to saying that Yuzu or an emulator isn’t open source because it doesn’t provide copyrighted games. It is providing literally all of the parts of it that it can open source, and then letting the user feed it whatever training data they are allowed access to.

In terms of actually building something close to the completeness of an Iron Man suit? No.

A) We don’t have powerful / dense enough energy sources. Ironman is powered by a fictional Arc reactor because we have no power source that small that can produce that much power.

B) We don’t have any quiet forms of airborne propulsion. You kind of hear Ironman’s jets sometimes, but not really, and in reality all our jets / fans that can produce enough thrust to lift a person are way louder.

C) Any material strong enough to actually be protective and stop bullets will also way a ton, making flight even more difficult.

D) In reality an Ironman suit wouldn’t be able to stop you from killing yourself through concussions whenever you crashed or hit anything.

That being said, there is a company building jetpacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suHOLFhbwsM

This guy built a DIY jetpack with arm boosters that fly to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSGaCew0xh8

And Adam Savage built a bulletproof Ironman suit out of titanium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC8go7wE6VU

LLMs use the entirety of a copyrighted work for their training, which fails the “amount and substantiality” factor.

That factor is relative to what is reproduced, not to what is ingested. A company is allowed to scrape the web all they want as long as they don’t republish it.

By their very nature, LLMs would significantly devalue the work of every artist, author, journalist, and publishing organization, on an industry-wide scale, which fails the “Effect upon work’s value” factor.

I would argue that LLMs devalue the author’s potential for future work, not the original work they were trained on.

Those two alone would be enough for any sane judge to rule that training LLMs would not qualify as fair use, but then you also have OpenAI and other commercial AI companies offering the use of these models for commercial, for-profit purposes, which also fails the “Purpose and character of the use” factor.

Again, that’s the practice of OpenAI, but not inherent to LLMs.

You could maybe argue that training LLMs is transformative,

It’s honestly absurd to try and argue that they’re not transformative.

And you said getting blisters from geometry wars was a sign I had a problem. Well who wasted their youth now mom!?

For the purposes of this conversation. That’s pretty much just a pedantic difference. They are paying to train those models and then providing them to the public to use completely freely in any way they want.

It would be like developing open source software and then not calling it open source because you didn’t publish the market research that guided your UX decisions.

More to the point, we still don’t know if Tesla FSD can actually outperform a human. It is again, based on cameras that are worse than the human eye.

This whole conversation so far has entirely missed the point.

The only thing that’s important here is being better driver than human. Not perfect - better.

Not sure if you read the above?

Making a copy is free. Making the original is not.

Yes, exactly. Do you see how that is different from the world of physical objects and energy? That is not the case for a physical object. Even once you design something and build a factory to produce it, the first item off the line takes the same amount of resources as the last one.

Capitalism is based on the idea that things are scarce. If I have something, you can’t have it, and if you want it, then I have to give up my thing, so we end up trading. Information does not work that way. We can freely copy a piece of information as much as we want. Which is why monopolies and capitalism are a bad system of rewarding creators. They inherently cause us to impose scarcity where there is no need for it, because in capitalism things that are abundant do not have value. Capitalism fundamentally fails to function when there is abundance of resources, which is why copyright was a dumb system for the digital age. Rather than recognize that we now live in an age of information abundance, we spend billions of dollars trying to impose artificial scarcity.

they did NOT predict generative AI, and their graphics cards just HAPPEN to be better situated for SOME reason.

This is the part that’s flawed. They have actively targeted neural network applications with hardware and driver support since 2012.

Yes, they got lucky in that generative AI turned out to be massively popular, and required massively parallel computing capabilities, but luck is one part opportunity and one part preparedness. The reason they were able to capitalize is because they had the best graphics cards on the market and then specifically targeted AI applications.

Me too, but real human creativity comes from having the time and space to rest and think properly. Automation is the only reason we have as much leisure time as we do on a societal scale now, and AI just allows us to automate more menial tasks.

Do you know where AI is actually being used the most right now? Automating away customer service jobs, automatic form filling, translation, and other really boring but necessary tasks that computers used to be really bad at before neural networks.