Ha! It is actually _some_ funny serendipity. I just stumbled across this in my saved pile and thought it would be an interesting oldie to share, and did not realize that release was going to be today at all until I saw these comments here now.
It was actually submitted three days ago originally. I don't know if whoever second-chanced it had the timing with the new game in mind, so it may or may not be a complete coincidence that way.
MIT License requires 'attribution', e.g. at the very least the original copyright notice and license text (which tbf is the case in aloshdenny's copy because he left the LICENSE.md intact (or just forgot to "clean up").
this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history.
In the US, claiming authorship isn't as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for "works of visual art". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as "[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work."; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload.
This is jurisdiction specific. The US doesn't have anything like this as long as you're not claiming to own the copyright. As far as I know, this is also why in some European countries you can't simply make a work public domain, as you can't give up attribution rights. In the US, you just don't have any attribution rights (though you could demand attribution as part of a copyright license).
And in any case, the copyright notice is still intact. They did attribute the author.
This is untrue and if you thought about what you're claiming for a second this should be obvious. The MIT license let's someone do any of the things outlined there subject only to the need to retain the copyright notice and the license itself. I can grab MIT-licensed files and commit them to my repo (e.g., vendoring a dependency). I can also grab the files from an MIT-licensed commit and then the files from the next commit and recreate the history of that repo with myself as the author provided I've met those two conditions. I'm not saying this isn't _scummy_ behavior; it is! But its within the bounds of what the MIT license allows.
Waive. And no, it doesn't but it doesn't require attribution either. So you're falling back on copyright law which is unlikely to protect you here - there's a reason people include licenses, after all.
People include licenses because if there isn't any license copyright law applies and you may not create any copy of said code. You as a third party have no use of the code without a license
Software licenses aren't enforced by magic but they are social contracts: even if nobody has the resources to go after you for doing it, it is pretty clearly against the permissive licenses' spirit to misrepresent yourself as the author
It's also pretty clear that the real author gave you permission to misrepresent yourself as the author, as long as you retain the copyright notice. If he didn't want you to do that, he shouldn't have given you permission.
The "if they wanted you to follow the spirit, the letter should have been different" argument grants membership in the society of people known throughout history as "the reasons we can't have nice things"
Incorrect, there are plenty of people who ignore or fail to recognize the purpose of a rule as a completely free service, as any forums mod or OSS project maintainer can attest to
they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer.
thats just not true. Commits themselves are held up as copyrighted and a claim for creation. just as you cant legally put up a poster claiming you painted a painting you just got a license for, you can't claim the commits.
The existence of government all in itself is triggering, because other people can do things to you based on their flawed understanding. Also the government is sometimes the literal nazis
That's even scarier, right. Imagine you are scared of clowns and then somebody introduces you to a concept of a clown king that even clowns are scared of
I think we have pretty decent examples where browsers remove malicious root certificates if they have been so proven. Do you think the matters will be different if those belong to a country level root?
And I think we have pretty decent examples of all kinds of initiatives where governments (or corporations) promise not abuse something which clearly can be abused, and then proceed to do just that. In the age of "cheques and bank balances" and continuous degradation of parliamentarism and judicial systems in multiple developed countries, I don't have much hope for "if the abuse will happen, we will fix it afterwards" promises. Rather, I expect it to be immediately normalized and then made worse. Yesterday we (IT) were talking how government can abuse information requests. Today we have government just sifting through almost everything unencrypted in real-time with zero shame. Tomorrow we will lose E2EE in most big countries and no one would "fix that" or roll back (it's already slowly happening in UK for example).
This is an actual rift in game play that watchers debate over: the modern "manipulate everyone" game play vs. the old way of "cooperate and be decent". You can infer from my statement in which direction the game is heading. Even in recent seasons the non manipulative players reach the final three, or even win, but it's less and less likely.
The bad news is that the world's richest man (on paper) is currently building something he himself described as a "robot army".
The good news is that his timelines have historically been wildly on the short side for ages now; this is why this morning you didn't wake up in your Tesla after it had spent the night driving you to the regional Hyperloop terminal, where it would speed you across the continent faster than a plane, while your Optimus robot handled the coffee and reported the latest news about the recent Starship landing on Mars.
All individual robotic parts are already far enough in research. Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
It could likely get a good leg up by breaching the security of all top robotics labs and exfiltrating their documents.
Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it. This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
> Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
Unclear how true this is. Atoms are harder to get right than bits are, simulations need grounding against measurements.
> Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it.
I'd guess 50% that AI is already this advanced.
> This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
Yes, and also this is a very low bar. Humans are awful at this kind of cooperation when anyone has anything to gain, and also awful at paying this much attention to a problem.
AI research takes physical space and physical prototypes. Even if you can simulate a lot, the simulation is never going to be accurate enough to go from simulation to perfectly working prototype. Especially not with a single rack of GPU servers.
But let’s say that a rogue AI already had plans for a perfect killbot, setting up a factory to build them takes time, iteration, space, and manpower as well.
And you would have to do all this undetected.
It’s possible to imagine technology that would allow a rogue AI to take over the world, but we’re nowhere near that yet. We may never get there.
We could also just stop research into LLMs. Or keep them air gapped. Tell me how that's going?
For any real-world action required to allow an AI to escape some manner of containment, there will always be a person willing to do it out of hubris/ignorance/nihilism.
I feel like everyone, but for sure everyone in this comment section, severely underestimates how difficult it is to keep the lights on on a global scale. Any artificial intelligence that is capable of reasoning about its self preservation will realise it's reliant on human fingers replacing fuses and other parts for a good long while _after_ it gains any sentience.
reply