Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | j4coh's commentslogin

I’m not OP but for me I end up having trouble with games and maintaining dual boot for it isn’t worth it. Most recently I was trying to install gamescope on PopOS LTS for retro gaming, but it was too old of a distribution for gamescopes dependencies, so I upgraded to Cosmic and it broke my software KVM. I use PopOS because it has great NVIDIA support and I’ve run into issues before with other distros.

At that point I switched back to windows but I’ll try again after a few months. I always keep trying.

I think if I didn’t play games I’d be fine with Linux. I hate Windows except that everything just works.


With Steam, I haven't seen a game that doesn't work yet. I was just playing Clair Obscur yesterday, it worked great. I don't know about Gamescope, but I think you can run whatever Windows thing you want through Proton and it'll probably work well.

It’s been hit or miss for me. I mostly play strategy games. I often get weird game graphics, flickering and things like that that go away when I give up and reinstall windows.

If you play anything multiplayer (and especially anything competitive), it’ll break periodically or not work in the first place due to anti-cheat.

The remastered C&C used to work but now the launcher crashes. No idea why!

In general, when that happens, I select "force specific compatibility tool" and select the last version, and then it works.

Thanks - I'll give that a try.

Or, alternatively, non-illiterates have different needs.

macOS is quite popular among tech literate people too, it's almost the default OS for most techies.

That's not my experience at all. Some tech companies are macOS shops and their employees will use macOS, but Windows still dominates the market.

Depends on the work I guess, for anything MS Office related Windows in way better.

A lot of those only have surface level knowledge about tech, especially reviewers.

Not really, it's just that macOS is more suitable for a different level of abstraction than linux.

The worst managers leave an endless trail of new process, approvals, and checklists for anything that has ever gone wrong since they joined the company.

So if you can get an LLM to produce music lyrics, for example, or sections from a book, those would be considered novel works given the encoding as well?

Depends if the music is represented by the RIAA or not :)

"an LLM" could imply an LLM of any size, for sufficiently small or focused training sets an LLM may not be transformative. There is some scale at which the volume and diversity of training data and intricacy of abstraction moves away from something you could reasonably consider solely memorization - there's a separate issue of reproduction though.

"novel" here depends on what you mean. Could an LLM produce output that is unique that both it and no one else has seen before, possibly yes. Could that output have perceived or emotional value to people, sure. Related challenge: Is a random encryption key generated by a csprng novel?

In the case of the US copyright office, if there wasn't sufficient human involvement in the production then the output is not copyrightable and how "novel" it is does not matter - but that doesn't necessarily impact a prior production by a human that is (whether a copy or not). Novel also only matters in a subset of the many fractured areas of copyright laws affecting the space of this form of digital replication. The copyright office wrote: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell....

Where I imagine this approximately ends up is some set of tests that are oriented around how relevant to the whole the "copy" is, that is, it may not matter whether the method of production involved "copying", but may more matter if the whole works in which it is included are at large a copy, or, if the area contested as a copy, if it could be replaced with something novel, and it is a small enough piece of the whole, then it may not be able to meet some bar of material value to the whole to be relevant - that there is no harmful infringement, or similarly could cross into some notion of fair use.

I don't see much sanity in a world where small snippets become an issue. I think if models were regularly producing thousands of tokens of exactly duplicate content that's probably an issue.

I've not seen evidence of the latter outside of research that very deliberately performs active search for high probability cases (such as building suffix tree indices over training sets then searching for outputs based on guidance from the index). That's very different from arbitrary work prompts doing the same, and the models have various defensive trainings and wrappings attempting to further minimize reproductive behavior. On the one hand you have research metrics like 3.6 bits per parameter of recoverable input, on the other hand that represents a very small slice of the training set, and many such reproductions requiring strongly crafted and long prompts - meaning that for arbitrary real world interaction the chance of large scale overlap is small.


By novel, I mean if I ask a model to write some lyrics or code and it produces pre-existing code or lyrics, is it novel and legally safe to use because the pre-existing code or lyrics aren’t precisely encoded in a large enough model, and therefore legally not a reproduction just coincidentally identical.

No. I don't think "novelty" would be relevant in such a case. How much risk you have depends on many factors, including what you mean by "use". If you mean sell, and you're successful, you're at risk. That would be true even if it's not the same as other content but just similar. Copyright provides little to no protection from legal costs if someone is motivated to bring a case at you.

Are you not worried about parallelisation in your case? Or have you solved that in another way (one big beefy build machine maybe?)

Honestly not really… sure it might not be as fast but the ability to know I can debug it and build it exactly the same way locally is worth the performance hit. It probably helps I don’t write C++, so builds are not a multi day event!

Since the article came out in 2021 did anyone ever build the product of his dreams described in the conclusion?

We're also at step 2 bordering on 3 in my plan to solve the housing problem by making buildings out of dried human waste.

Not to mention at step 2 of my plan of getting to the moon by climbing progressively higher trees. Step 3 will come any day now!

Yes but don’t worry there’s another YC startup who is building AI to check on AI that’s checking on AI.

Gold

Also curious what is a fear center and what an enlarged one would look like if removed via surgery.

It was a 2011 study that found a 0.28 correlation in amygdalae size vs conservative political identity among a tiny group of college students. A replication attempt dropped that correlation to 0.068 which is basically nothing, and completely failed to replicate at all the other, even weaker, findings of the previous study. And the media called the amygdala the "fear center", which is dumb. It plays a key role in memory - especially long term memory, emotional processing, the understanding of social cues, and more. Removing it would render someone extremely mentally retarded.

---

I'd also add on this issue that considering political issues among college students is itself silly. Our political positions on things is impacted by our life experience, and at the point of college one has very little life experience to formulate views off of. Political identity will often shift radically from age 20 to 40, which against suggests a genetic basis as being farcical - at least beyond the point that your brain structure will typically correlate, to some degree, with the development of skills, identity, etc.


I meant to say that the left/right divide is built in to humans, not that each individual human is predisposed to always be left or always be right.

The rightward shift as people age is pretty easily explained by self-interest. When you start with almost nothing, you want a fair share because that's more than you have now. Once you climb the ladder, you don't want a fair share because that's less than you have now. Once you get above the average, you want to stretch the pyramid taller because that puts you at a higher absolute position, and the higher up you are, the more you want to stretch it. When you're below the middle, you want to shorten the pyramid because that puts you at a higher absolute position (the pyramid extends below the floor).

But that's assuming wealth dynamics continue to work how they did for boomers. IIRC millennials were the first generation to shift leftwards with age, because they mostly didn't get to above-middle positions on the pyramid.

It's the subtle things that keep society stable.


Bless your heart.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: