If there was going to be a case, it's derivative works. [1]

What makes it all tricky for the courts is there's not a good way to really identify what part the generated code is a derivative of (except in maybe some extreme examples).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

One could carefully calculate exactly how much a given document in the training set has influenced the LLM's weights involved in a particular response.

However, that number would typically be very very very very small, making it hard to argue that the whole model is a derivative of that one individual document.

Nevertheless, a similar approach might work if you took a FOSS project as a whole, e.g. "the model knows a lot about the Linux kernel because it has been trained on its source code".

However, it is still not clear that this would be necessarily unlawful or make the LLM output a derivative work in all cases.

It seems to me that LLMs are trained on large FOSS projects as a way to teach them generalisable development skills, with the side effect of learning a lot about those particular projects.

So if I used a LLM to contribute to the kernel, clearly it would be drawing on information acquired during its training on the kernel's code source. Perhaps it could be argued that the output in that case would be a derivative?

But if I used a LLM to write a completely unrelated piece of software, the kernel training set would be contributing a lot less to the output.

Every so often, usually after a firefox update, CF will get into a "I'm convinced your a bot" mode with me. I can get out of it by solving 20 CAPTCHAs.

It's probably just a higher rate of autonomous vehicles needing stop signs and buses identified at that moment, and cognitive bias causes you to only remember when that happens when you recently performed an update. /s

>It's probably just a higher rate of autonomous vehicles needing stop signs and buses identified at that moment

I can't tell whether you're serious but in case you are, this theory immediately falls apart when you realize waymo operates at night but there aren't any night photos.

Thanks for the comment. Lack of seriousness is now appropriately indicated.

My assumption is that CF has something like a SVM that it's feeding a bunch of datapoints into for bot detection. Go over some threshold and you end up in the CAPTCHA jail.

I'm certain the User-Agent is part of it. I know that for certain because a very reliable way I can trigger the CF stuff is this plugin with the wrong browser selected [1].

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/

The real problem here is she'll get money, who knows how much, but that ultimately does nothing to actually address the problems in the system.

Effectively it just raises taxes to cover the cost of these failed prosecutions.

Everytime one of these cases happens, a cop and a prosecutor should be out of a job permanently. Possibly even jailed. The false arrest should lose the cop their job and get them blacklisted, the prosecution should lose the prosecutor's right to practice law.

And if the police union doesn't like that and decides to strike, every one of those cops should simply be fired. Much like we did to the ATC. We'd be better off hiring untrained civilians as cops than to keep propping up this system of warrior cops abusing the citizens.

> The false arrest should lose the cop their job and get them blacklisted

There is actually a federal register for LEOs that have been terminated for cause or resigned to avoid termination.

The police unions that operate in the jurisdictions that employ 70% of US police have negotiated into their CBAs that the register “cannot be used for hiring or promotional decisions”. Read into that what you will.

I'm generally pretty for unions, but the police union is one that's a complete cancer on society. It pretty much solely exists to make sure cops are free to harm the public without any sort of accountability.

Agreed. And I think we really, really need to put more effort into a "police the police" organization. Someone who has power only over the police, who the police do not have power over, to act as a check.

> police unions

... test my support for the idea of unionization. I have even said in the past that I think public sector unions are especially important because their boss (the people) are the most capricious and malicious of all.

Maybe we could find a way to put guardrails on what they could and could not negotiate into a contract. Wages, benefits, basic job environmental conditions, stuff like that -- okay. But administrative policies which exist to prevent bad behavior should be non-negotiable.

Funnily, I believe the glove mandates for food prep are actually anti-hygiene.

Unlike bare skin, you can't really feel when your gloves are contaminated. So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. With bare hands, you can feel the raw chicken juices on you, so it's pretty natural to want to wash your hands right after handling the raw chicken.

Gloves are important in medicine, but that's with proper use where doctors and nurses put on new gloves for every patient. That doesn't always happen.

> So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should.

To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit.

You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable.

I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.

> I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves...

I've seen enough absent-minded nose wipes on the back of gloves at Chipotle-style establishments to be pretty OK with this take.

And that's where people are watching.

Yeah, but then something tells me they wouldn't be washing their hands instead. Which is the comparison being made.

> I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.

I think that because I was a food service worker and it's impossible to change gloves during a rush. Nitrile gloves and sweaty hands simply do not mix. There are also many more forms of cross contamination than just raw meat to cooked food.

If you don't have time to change gloves how do you have time to wash your hands?

It's much quicker to wash your hands.

Gloves require your hands to be perfectly dry to put on effectively.

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You can dry your hands on a towel in seconds. I don't know what you mean by "perfectly dry"...? Like, nobody needs to blow-dry their hands before putting gloves on or anything.

I do a medical procedure several times a week that requires gloves.

If you don't flap your hands around for 30+ seconds, any remaining moisture from handwashing (or sweat) makes them stick to your skin and you wind up fighting them (and about half the time, ripping a hole). A towel is not enough.

I variously use nitrile, vinyl, and poly gloves when cooking messy things at home in bulk, like chicken, bacon, etc. I regularly pull them off to do something and then throw a new pair back on. They can be kinda sweaty and it's... fine. Zero problem whatsoever sliding on a new pair.

I'm not doubting your personal experience. I'm just saying it's in no way a universal rule. I'm sure experiences will be different depending on glove material, glove size, and just the different shapes of different people's hands.

But for me and for plenty of people I've worked with earlier in my life, swapping gloves was way faster and easier than washing hands again. Plus, washing your hands like 40 times in a shift is going to dry them out. It's not great.

> But for me and for plenty of people I've worked with earlier in my life, swapping gloves was way faster and easier than washing hands again. Plus, washing your hands like 40 times in a shift is going to dry them out. It's not great.

You and your former coworkers must have magic lubricating sweat or something. I have literally never encountered someone with this opinion before in my life. And I was a combat medic before I was a line cook, so I think I know a thing or two about gloves. Even in the medical field, there were times when medics skipped the gloves because they were treating their buddies under fire and the time to get gloves on wasn't worth it to them (for anyone unfamiliar, gloves in field medicine are mostly about protecting the provider, not the patient).

I think this might come down to sizing. Larger glove for hand size makes them easy to put on but hard to use for fine motor actions, whereas a well fitting glove makes any wetness on the hand a time sink. The stretchiness is the mechanism by which they both fit well and are hard to put on, but if you are willing to give up fit they don't need to stretch and you can just throw them on.

Many food service workers don't use gloves and don't wash their hands after going to the toilet, from what I have observed.

> To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit.

You are supposed to. I've seen plenty of fast food places where the gloves stay on between jobs.

I'm sure there are upscale places that are better on this point.

> You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable.

If you were just working with raw chicken, that slimy feeling on your skin is a pretty good motivator for most people to immediately wash their hands. It's more than just procedure or habit, your hands feel dirty and you want to wash that off.

> I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.

You absolutely are supposed to. But there's a gap in what you are supposed to do vs what actually happens in practice. Especially if you get a penny pinching boss that doesn't like wasting money on gloves.

That doesn't happen so much in medicine because the consequences are much higher. But for food? Not uncommon. There are more than a few restaurants with open kitchens that I've had to stop eating at because employees could be seen handling a bunch of things with the same set of gloves on.

It also does not help that food is often a mad rush.

> It's more than just procedure or habit, your hands feel dirty and you want to wash that off.

I'm not sure that's reliable across people. I'm definitely like that; whenever my hands feel the least bit dirty or oily or anything, I really want to wash them. But I've run into people who have commented on the fact that I do that, and I've learned that there are lots of people who just don't have that compulsion at all.

I agree that it's not reliable.

My point is that changing gloves is something that is even less reliable and needs to be drilled in through procedure and habit. Handwashing also needs the procedure and habit, but it has the added benefit that for a good number of people there's also a physical compulsion that goes along with that procedure and habit.

That's probably the places where people would never wash their hands either

Food safety regulations in most states require that food workers replace gloves if they handle raw meat and switch to other foodstuffs.

But they don't generally require them to replace gloves between batches of (the same kind of) meat, or between different kinds of vegetables, or when switching from vegetables to meat, or between customers if they're on a service line. While it's recommended in those situations, I'm not sure any state mandates it.

I mean, they don't require gloves to be replaced in those situations because there isn't a good safety reason to. There's zero reason to replace your gloves when switching from dicing green peppers for a salad to picking up raw chicken. Or similarly between customers if you're just handling food, and not a cash register or anything. It's not like you're touching the customers...

> There's zero reason to replace your gloves when switching from dicing green peppers for a salad to picking up raw chicken.

Typo?

No typo. That's the direction that's safe.

It seems you're thinking they're switching back and forth, but that's not what they wrote?

Just typical "programmer thinks they know how to do every job, especially the ones they've never done"

People also don't develop good habits and constantly touch their face with gloves. I worked with surgeons in the hospital and they would point this out. Equally important in a cleanroom.

Yes but most people find it icky and would complain, especially if it's visible behind the counter. Customer is king... I can also imagine it helps with legal liability, "but we were so careful, we even mandated gloves!"

Yeah, that's more the problem than anything else.

And it's true that you would get cleaner food prep if you used gloves properly. However, that requires a lot of gloves getting thrown away.

Uh yea. That’s why most places use washed hands not gloves.

I’ve never seen for example sushi portrayed with anything but bare hands

Sushi chefs spend years learning the correct feel of the fish - when it's warm enough, when it's slimy. Japanese are taken aback when they are forced to wear gloves for "safety", which at least in that case is entirely counter productive.

And it's important to note that ICE and CBP don't need additional funding. They were overfunded with the last spending bill by about 10x their actual needs.

That's the reason why ICE and CBP agents are still collecting paychecks while the rest of DHS is not.

It's actually a bit silly that Republicans, the party of limited government, have been holding up funding the TSA and FEMA because an agency they already overspent on won't get additional dollars. Not very DOGE.

Not just bipartisan. That bill was unanimously passed in the Senate.

Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present.

It was also at 2 o'clock in the morning

You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not.

Thune, the republican senate majority leader, was the one that put up the unanimous consent motion.

There were more than just 5 people there. Though it was late at night.

You can't push something through unanimous consent if there's not a quorum. That requires at least 51% of each party to be present.

Now, it's possible they waited until some of the big objectors to the bill fell asleep or left. But, that doesn't really change the fact that Thune pushed this through.

I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.

Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.

Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.

Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member.

The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call.

I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up.

But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it.

You can basically do that today if you wanted to by buying consumer grade batteries and smart switches. A whole house battery would be better, but it's more expensive to install.

For the tumble drier and dishwasher, those usually come with time delay features. That's usually good enough if your goal is to timeshift a load.

I have a battery for my fridge not for this purpose, but because I'd rather not have a power outage spoil my food.

With "smart" appliances that can be controlled, there's often a community integration to HomeAssistant ... and then there's the free EMHASS addon which will optimise for profit, or self consumption based on energy prices (both incoming and outgoing) as well as any on-site generation (e.g. Solar PV) batteries etc. etc.

Neat piece of open source software.

Let's be serious, it's not like AI companies haven't fed into this misunderstanding. CEOs of these companies love to muse about the possibility that an LLM is conscious.

I presume wasps are conscious. I still don't trust wasps.

Is that how you approach debugging? :)

Yeah, it's unfortunately part of the hype. Talking about how close you are to having a truly general AI is just a way to generate buzz (and ideally investor dollars).

There's a weird thing that happens with cancer drugs that I just experienced.

When they are working with a pharmacy and your insurance, the price they'll charge you is $10,000 for enough pills to last a month. But when your insurance says "We won't cover that" all the sudden you find out the company has a backdoor subsidization program which will fully cover the cost of the drug for reasons I can't really fathom (good will?)

What's even more uncomfortable is my insurance (aetna) also mandates that I get my medicine from their subsidiary, CVS.

I really don't like this sort of thing. The price of everything in medicine feels distorted in unbelievable ways. Like famously a $0.25 acetaminophen pill that somehow magically costs $10 in the hospital. I guess there's some nice individual packaging.

I'm less and less convinced that it's even a cost sort of thing with these pharmaceutical companies. Like, sure they'll love to reduce that as much as possible. But the price itself seems entirely fictitious and based on what they can commonly get insurers to pay, and not anything related to the actual R&D of the drug.

> Like famously a $0.25 acetaminophen pill that somehow magically costs $10 in the hospital. I guess there's some nice individual packaging.

When my first child was born the nurses had a terrible time drawing blood, so they gave him sugar water to calm him down billed at $40/5ml.

The mutability of the price emphasis the cost/price disjoin.

Probably you are a soft recruit to "they got better' numbers for post trial marketing but even then, it's like a Ford is $30,000 or $3 depending how easily it can be sold.

Isn’t it just regular price discrimination? Profit maximizing firms with market power charge different prices based on willingness to pay in order to sell to people who won’t pay a higher single value monopolist price.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

It's a bit like software pricing, the marginal cost of production is low. You often see massively different prices charged to different types of customer.

I used to support an application used by about half a dozen businesses. They all knew each other, that's how I got their business.

Two of them were paying significantly more for their support than the others. That's because those two had their phone numbers set to ring even when my phone is in quiet mode. Just for the privilege of being able to wake me whenever you want, and get my attention even when I'm in the middle of a hike, you're paying substantially more.

> I really don't like this sort of thing. The price of everything in medicine feels distorted in unbelievable ways. Like famously a $0.25 acetaminophen pill that somehow magically costs $10 in the hospital. I guess there's some nice individual packaging.

okay well, let's say you were to model "what explains the price of something" and you had two factors in your model, "markets" and "politics." most good models will have a residual which means "everything else."

when i say "low risk" to commercialization, i could mean a lot of things. it depends on what the drug category is.

if you develop the only cure for an otherwise fatal, pediatric, congenital disease, the parents will be willing to pay an unlimited amount of money for it. so there's no market price for it. so we know that, no matter what, a correct model for that is, 0% market. this is really, extremely difficult for most people who look at this issue, because it renders their opinions about what should you pay for this drug basically moot. they'll all have different answers. so the numbers of our independent variable, "price people are willing to pay" will be uncorrelated with the price people actually pay. and this is one of those instances where the absence of correlation means no causation. instead of looking cogently at this situation and saying, "well, okay, maybe i should temper my outrage about drug pricing in this actually very important scenario" they just get more outraged.

so what factors are left: political and everything else? well, the drug is effective, it's a cure, this describes a lot of drugs. that's what we are talking about, effective drugs. the FDA process has ALSO attacked the importance of market pricing from this angle too, the clinical trials process here and how it has been standardized around the world basically works. so the residual, if it's about the efficacy of the drug, actually does NOT explain the price very much at all. this is counterintuitive!

this is why a CURE for a disease is not 10x more expensive than something that already exists and manages a disease. so...

what's left? my guess would be, the price would be explained by, okay, a lot of it will be political. like 90% political. this is what i mean by "low risk of commercialization." nobody is going to win an election being like, your kid should die.

are you getting it now? you are getting hung up on prices. you don't know the first thing about prices. you think the journey to understanding prices has to do with "$0.25 acetaminophen pill that somehow magically costs $10 in the hospital" and hospital charge lists or whatever, which is 200% wrong, that's a huge red herring.

prices in categories that are low commercialization risk are almost always explained by a political process. which is to say, all the innovations today in commercialization are political. that's bad. but that should also illuminate why, if I were running the FDA, that's where my focus would be - besides, at the rest of the HHS, 10x the basic science R&D budget.

Isn't the usual answer here to try and segment the market and even if your initial guess is horribly wrong price discovery will follow?

Long wall of text incoming, but please read if you want to know why drug pricing works like it does:

It’s because of the way insurance works in the US. Insurance companies have formularies, which are essentially menus of what products they cover. They also will label certain medications as “preferred” and actively steer consumers to them. Pharma companies fight to get preferred coverage from insurers.

Because of this, pharmaceutical companies go through complex negotiations with insurance companies. In theory, this is to get pharma companies to compete on price and offer discounts (called “rebates”). An industry of middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) has arisen who negotiate with pharma companies on behalf of the insurers and create the formularies. The problem is, these guys take a percentage cut of the discount they secure for the insurers. This creates a perverse incentive to give preferred status to more expensive drugs. Take this hypothetical example of two competing drugs:

- Drug A costs $150, but gets negotiated down to $100 - Drug B costs $200, but gets negotiated down to $100 - The PBM gets a fee of 10% of the secured discount, meaning they make twice as much for creating a formulary with B rather than A

To no one’s surprise, drug B gets given preferred status over A.

Pharma companies figured this out a long time ago, and began to jack up their prices each year, only to immediately negotiate them back down to where they were previously, in the form of rebates, because this increased the likelihood of getting out ahead on the formulary by the PBM. The best example of this might be insulin, which has skyrocketed in list price, but profit for the insulin companies has actually remained much more stable. This is because each year the sticker price is raised, and then immediately slashed in the “negotiations” with the insurers.

After a while, the pure sticker shock began causing a lot of justified outrage among patients and the public. Pharma companies saw they were taking the blame for skyrocketing prices even though at the end of the day they were negotiating these prices down and weren’t actually making that money due to rebates. So they began to offer alternatives for customers not on insurance, in the form of “coupons”, “savings cards”, etc. These often get you prices close to what the actual cost of the medicine is before the “jack up the price then rebate it down” dog and pony show. But insurers/PBMs reacted poorly to these, and began punishing pharma companies through the formularies. This is why these have become shadowy “backdoor” programs.

It’s also important to note that the PBM’s aren’t even independent middlemen. 80% of the PBM industry is dominated by 3 companies, all of whom are owned by insurers: Express Scripts (Cigna), CVS Caremark (CVS/Aetna), and OptumRx (UnitedHealthcare)

So why even go through all this?

- Pharma companies don’t really have a choice, they have to to get on the formulary

- PBMs make their money entirely through this scheme

- Costs for insurers aren’t ultimately changing much from year to year. However, higher sticker prices means the public is ever more dependent on insurance for medical bills. It also provide justification for increasing premiums more than their costs might otherwise. And pharma ultimately takes the brunt of the blame.

Lastly, if you are wondering why this doesn’t exist in other countries, it’s an unsurprising reason: government subsidized health insurance. Unlike insurers and PBMs, there are no perverse incentives or profit motive, so cheaper prices are an actual benefit. Medicare/medicaid doesn’t have to go through these shenanigans, but they aren’t available widely in the US. You don’t even need healthcare for all. You just need a public healthcare option for everyone. That introduces an actor whose motives actually align with consumers, invalidates this entire charade, and forces insurers and PBMs to actually compete on merit and price.

TLDR: The lack of public healthcare options in the US has created an insurance cartel that has both consumers and pharmaceutical companies by the balls.

There are 2 unavoidable atomic updates for RC, the allocation and the free event. That alone will significantly increase the amount of traffic per thread back to main memory.

A lifetime system could possibly eliminate those, but it'd be hard to add to the JVM at this point. The JVM sort of has it in terms of escape analysis, but that's notoriously easy to defeat with pretty typical java code.

Why would an allocation require an atomic write for a reference count?

Swift routinely optimizes out reference count traffic.