That’s why I like Java too. The fact that it’s so strict means I have to think about projects in a certain way and can’t just wing my way through it like Python.
Have you ever worked with Apple SDKs? They’re kinda a mess. They’d still need a dedicated team to build, support and manage the app, and they clearly don’t feel it’s worth it.
It’s still 4-5 full time developers at least. Probably a full few teams also including marketing, legal and a few other departments.
I’d guess it’s mostly just a low volume set of use cases. So few people are on iVision (my new name for this) that it doesn’t make sense to devote development time to it.
The thing is, I don’t want those replaced by a headset. I have a total of 5 monitors on my home setup, and I can’t see a reason to replace any of them. Especially with a headset that’s likely going to be uncomfortable, heavy and isolating. I just can’t see any case where a headset could be even remotely close to preferable.
A recliner would probably decrease my enjoyment of the setup anyways, as I much prefer a physical desk, chair and monitors.
Because it’s objectively not true. Humans and ML models fundamentally process information differently and cannot be compared. A model doesn’t “read a book” or “absorb information”
I’m well aware of how machine learning works. I did 90% of the work for a degree in exactly it. I’ve written semi-basic neural networks from scratch, and am familiar with terminology around training and how the process works.
Humans learn, process, and most importantly, transform data in a different manner than machines. The sum totality of the human existence each individual goes through means there is a transformation based on that existence that can’t be replicated by machines.
A human can replicate other styles, as you show with your example, but that doesn’t mean that is the total extent of new creation. It’s been proven in many cases that civilizations create art in isolation, not needing to draw from any previous art to create new ideas. That’s the human element that can’t be replicated in anything less than true General AI with real intelligence.
Machine Learning models such as the LLMs/GenerativeAI of today are statistically based on what it has seen before. While it doesn’t store the data, it does often replicate it in its outputs. That shows that the models that exist now are not creating new ideas, rather mixing up what they already have.
You can steal all you want, but it’s still theft. Piracy is theft, stealing data to be used as training data is theft.
Not everyone wants their creations to be infinitely shared beyond their control. If someone creates something, they’re entitled to absolute control over it.
Honestly, yes. I’m ok with that. People are not entitled to be able to do anything they want with someone else’s IP. 90 years is almost reasonable. Cut it in half and I’d also consider it fairly reasonable.
I’m all for expanding copyright for individuals and small companies (small media companies, photographers who are incorporated, artists who make money based on commissions, etc) and reducing it for mega corps, but there’s an extremely fine line around that.
They’re screwed less than they would be if copyright was abolished. It’s not a perfect system by far, but over restrictive is 100x better than an open system of stealing from others.
They protect artists AND protect corporations, and you can’t have one without the other. It’s much better the way it is compared to no copyright at all.
It’s near impossible to switch to airbus if an airline is preset entrenched in Boeing. You have to retrain everyone from ground crews to pilots to FAs to maintenance. On top of that you need new suppliers for spare parts, maintenance hubs and contracts.
Also supply is a major issue. Both Airbus and Boeing are back ordered for years, so there isn’t a way to easily switch fleets.
That’s exactly what they’re saying. The AI proponents believe that copyright shouldn’t be respected and they should be able to ignore any licensing because “it’s hard to find data otherwise”
If you can’t afford to pay the authors of the data required for your project to work, then that sucks for you, but doesn’t give you the right to take anything you want and violate copyright.
Making a data agnostic model and releasing the source is fine, but a released, trained model owes royalties to its training data.
Corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such.
If a company does something illegal, the penalty should be spread to the board. It’d make them think twice about breaking the law.
We should not be awarding human rights to non-human, non-sentient creations. LLMs and any kind of Generative AI are not human and should not in any case be treated as such.
Hello World is < 10 lines in Java. Just say you don’t know the language and go away.
Java runs the majority of corporate software out there, and it is very good at what it’s built for.
I’ll take Java over Python/Rust any day of the week