> Are you saying a CEO needs to disclose everyone they have sex with to the board?
If they work under you, yes? It's written into every business conduct policy I've ever seen?
It should be really obvious why entering into a sexual relationship with someone who reports to you without disclosing it to your manager is bad. The CEO reports to the board, so they disclose it to them.
It is equally obvious why not reporting rape is bad, but many don't. It is easy to blame the victim when you are not they, but it is not so easy when you're actually in it and have to process the emotions. Being manipulated into having extramarital affairs is not the norm for 60-something married guys. A large segment of 60-something married guys are invisible to the world; often even to their own wife. It is not something people normally grow up around to see how to handle themselves.
I would disagree. The size doesn't matter that much. The main metric is just number of commits, because that is what drives the flow. Not saying size doesn't have an effect, just saying number of commits is the primary signal.
Average number of files changed per commit is going to have a huge impact on performance since that’s a huge part of what the “git push” handshake is trying to figure out regarding what to upload.
> It is very unlikely that LLM had access to original source code of Photoshop.
It doesn’t matter. It’s likely had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on that source code.
I have worked at companies that have done clean-room implementations. I was not permitted to look at their source or interact with those teams, because I had been exposed to the source of what they were re-implementing in a prior job.
As a human with a mushy brain I was never going to remember the source, but the fact I had been proximate to it was enough to lock me out. You have no idea what the LLM trained on, so you can’t prove a LLM derived clone is a “clean-room” implementation.
Some questionable idea that the LLM "had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on Photoshop source code" seems like a poor basis to allege it's not a clean room implementation.
Wouldn't the burden of proof here be on Adobe if they wanted to make such an argument?
That's not the argument in the article. Not only that but coding is deterministic up to a certain point. Once the project becomes complex, it becomes harder and harder to account for all edge cases. Sometimes it requires heuristics that are not deterministic, etc. There are infinite ways to implement the same requirements.
That argument is like saying that weather is deterministic. It is if you know every single variable, but that's impossible.
The Director's Cut (released in 1992) drops the narration and adds the dream sequence, but despite the name is not entirely approved by Ridley Scott.
The Final Cut (released in 2007) is the only version where Ridley Scott had full final cut approval. It re-masters the audio, fixes some of the effects (replacing faces on stunt doubles, removing wires, etc), and changes a few lines (most notably "I want more life, father" instead of "fucker"). The color is also re-graded.
Some people prefer the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, especially the color grading, although I saw the Final Cut in 35mm when it was released and it looked pretty spectacular. In any event the changes in the Final Cut are nowhere near as egregious as the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films.
> the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films
I really wonder why some creatives are so determined to sabotage their earlier works later in life. Do they actually believe that they are making them better and are so used to being told how great they are that they can too easily dismiss anyone telling them otherwise? Or are they perhaps (consciously or subconsciously) threatened by a standard that their current self can no longer match up to?
It's sad that with the way copyright and movie distribution work that these butchered version become the only version new audiences get to see.
If they work under you, yes? It's written into every business conduct policy I've ever seen?
It should be really obvious why entering into a sexual relationship with someone who reports to you without disclosing it to your manager is bad. The CEO reports to the board, so they disclose it to them.
reply