How do you prove the training data didn't contain the code?

I'd assume an LLM trained on the original would also be contaminated.

It doesn't matter for the LLM writing the analysis.

It does matter for the one who implements it.

Finding an LLM that's good enough to do the rewrite while being able to prove it wasn't exposed to the original GPL code is probably impossible.

I usually avoid strangers, because those who talk to you are usually weirdos.

Thing is, if normal people don't talk to strangers anymore, then only the weirdos are left, reinforcing the idea that only weirdos talk to strangers...

+1 In any major city it's probably 90% chance they're either a crook trying to scam you out of something or mentally not quite right. The remaining 10% will be tourists or people from outside of the major city.

You're confusing "asking people for something" with "talking to people."

Nobody wants randos coming up to them and asking for something.

Most people would be less lonely if everyone had more practice at making non-transactional conversation.

Actively avoiding conversation still qualifies as "weirdo" behavior to most people.

"Someday - and that day may never come" - they will be asking for something. Now you are on talking terms and it will be harder to refuse the ask, compared to the request of a complete stranger.

On public transit or a street, maybe. But only maybe.

Are you willfully ignoring people at bars, night clubs, supermarkets, etc?

It's obvious 99% of the time whether or not the conversation is in the wrong place and wrong time.

bars and clubs are specific venues for social interactions.

Supermarkets are a toss up. Most people are there to get their food and get out.

This is sad but not inconsistent with my experience. Though I think 10% is actually the people who genuinely want to have a nice conversation. and I think that worth putting up witrh the rest 90% for.

In my experience that's not true at all, but I think a lot of people have that perception, which is sad.

I understand what both of you are saying, I lived in areas where if someone is talking to you on the street theres a high chance theyre asking you for something, so you learn to just kinda block all of it out. Now that I moved to a smaller town, I find myself talking to strangers much more frequently.

If they cone accross as mwntally ill, they dont have social skill. Per definition.

Scamming crools frequently do have good social skills, but of course there is that risk of being scammed if you talk to them.

this. it's alarming how many takes ITT are detached from reality.

In my experience, only weirdos never speak to strangers. Social skills are easy, conversations are easy and strangers are just people you don’t know yet.

I still can’t understand the point of this. Do you get a charge telling social anxious people they’ll be weird if they do their homework? That’s precisely what you did. Why?

I live in NYC. Maybe this is different in the suburbs. Nearly 100% of the people that approach me are trying to get something from me. Scam me, get me to sign something I don't want to sign, get me to donate my money to save the dogs/children/etc.

If someone on the street tries to talk to me, I try to avoid even looking at them or acknowledging them. They'll use that as an opening. Just keep walking.

I lived in NYC for a decade. This is very true on the street, but less true waiting in a subway station, and even less true in a neighborhood bar. The more public, there is a “market for lemons” effect in conversation. The more it resembles a private club or a group suffering a common injustice, the more reliably good the conversation is. A crowd on an MTA platform where a train hasn’t shown up in 50 minutes can get pretty chatty.

Well, that's your experience. Some people live in places where most strangers that talk to you are wierdos. Some of us live in places where most strangers on the street are actually dangerous (and I'm not talking about NYC or any place in America, I'm talking about actual criminal hotspots, which is the reality of a huge portion of humanity you probably don't think about).

Yeah, GUI code, for example is notoriously chatty. Forms, charts, etc.

AI makes using them a breeze.

Yeah, Hyperion had an interesting structure, but the second book was quite basic compared to that.

If The Fall of Hyperion were 1/3 of the length and part of the first book it would be perfect.

The first too books aged well.

Pro: Interesting world building, Canterbury Tales in space, Huckleberry Finn in space, strong female characters.

Con: Pro Judaism and Christianity (albeit with much criticism to both) and anti Islam, awkward sex scenes, awkward Lolita-esque vibes in the latter books.

If content with that license reaches critical mass, a law firm could sue for many at once.

Books don't have an explicit no-LLM license.

They have a very explicit "No unauthorized copies or transfer to other media" and they still got shafted.

If you liked that story, you might also like Greg Egan's "Permutation City" and "Diaspora".

Both having slightly different takes on uploading.

And Blindsight. I will recommend Blindsight all day, even if it's not directly to do with uploading.

I keep trying to read Diaspora and struggle too much with the concepts presented early on. Very "hard sci-fi", just stick it out and it all gets explained?

The beginning describes the formation of an intelligence and it is indeed very dense. You can figure out what's going on but it takes some slow reading, and probably best to revisit it once you have some more context from later in the book.

The whole book isn't like that. Once you get past that part, as the other commenter said, it gets much easier.

I actually love the beginning of Diaspora, and have recommended just that section to people. I found it beautiful and moving. It's starting to learn that people have to "get past" that section...

Egan is always dense. It's some mind bending physics/comp sci, but all cooked up in his brain so doesn't really apply to anything productive. I struggled with his books and his writing but toughened it out because I liked the concepts, but he's divisive.

That's not really true. Some of his works are science-heavy, others are not. Particularly, many of short stories require little-to-no context.

lol, that was exactly my thought.

The whole birth of an virtual identity part is so dense, I didn't understand half of what was "explained".

However, after that it becomes a much easier read.

Not much additional explanation, but I think, it's not really needed to enjoy the rest of the book.

Another book by Greg Egan - "Zendegi" - has more overlap with MMAcevedo. It covers a different approach to mind uploading (possibly) more practical in near future: a generic model of the brain is fine-tuned on responses from a specific human. The generic model itself is made by averaging over many scanned connectomes. The other part of the book is VR Shahnameh which, honestly, was a bit too boring.

He also has a whole bunch of short stories on the same topic. Some assume reader is already familiar with concept of sideloading, as it's explained in the passing:

1. Bit Players: https://www.gregegan.net/MISC/BIT/BIT.html

2. 3-adica

3. Instantiation

4. Uncanny Valley (available online)

Other:

1. "Reasons to Be Cheerful"

2. “Learning to Be Me”

3. Closer

c.f., Vernor Vinge's "The Cookie Monster"

https://museum.netstalking.org/storage/cyberlib/lib/burz/vin...

Those programs make economic sense if the successful artists later pay for it with their taxes.

If they leave the country, then not so much.