If you were relying on Apple to predict your speech in order to speak, then perhaps it isn’t your speech being censored. Speak for yourself; don’t complain that Apple won’t speak for you.
I agree completely. Personally, I think the art of programming was lost the moment we started using human-readable languages.
Some people see coding as simply getting a problem solved, and aren't interested in how the CPU actually does it. Others appreciate the craft of painstakingly arranging machine instructions, understanding every register and every clock cycle, and knowing they're solving problems that not just anyone can.
For us, that's where the sense of worth and accomplishment comes from. Using a high-level language to have a compiler do all the interesting work rather misses the point.
But I don't fault people who use Python, C++, or even assembly. It's just a different way of looking at it.
There's nothing improper about calling it Apple Silicon. Yes, the chips have ARM-based CPU cores, but those cores are designed by Apple, not Arm, and they're only one part of the overall A-series and M-series designs.
Apple, by the way, was a co-founder of Arm and helped develop ARM processors for use in the Apple Newton. Its early work on making ARM CPUs highly power efficient paved the way for their now-widespread adoption in mobile devices. There's some irony in how a part of the Apple Newton reverberates throughout the industry today.
Fair, but that money is a linchpin. Having the vision to see a commercial application and the will to fund its development into a real product is equally pivotal to the bringing about of a thing —- even if we engineers sometimes struggle to see it that way.
Apples investment track record in the 90s differs with your opinion that they were future seeing oracles who brought pre-ordained projects into existence. Hell they even sold their shares in ARM 5 years later, so they obviously didnt think that much of it.
Apple's value is absolutely for their software... as compared to Windows. (And as compared to Linux, for people who don't care about technology and for whom any risk of ever facing a terminal prompt is a non-starter.)
An ironic analogy, because most people do exactly that, most of the time. How many people with money directly or indirectly invested in Alphabet or Ford actually understand those companies' financial positions? And I don't mean "has read the filings". I mean understand them to the same depth that a professional security researcher understands a cryptographic implementation.
We routinely place trust in things we cannot personally verify.
Ultimately the guarantor of cryptography code won't be humans, it will be councils and red teams comprised of other LLMs.
We were never this absolutist about intellectual property when individuals were the perpetrators. I don’t feel morally entitled to criticise Big AI for doing what individuals have done for centuries.
Obviously, the state has a long track record of enforcing copyright on behalf of large corporations. But I'm following on from the original comment's framing of intellectual property as a matter of personal ethics. When I say "we", I mean people in communities like this one. We weren't individually troubled by the ethics of copyright infringement as we hunted for better MP3s on Napster and shared MPEG-4s of Family Guy and Deep Space Nine on 4GB USB sticks.
It's that contrast with today's moral absolutism around AI training that I find interesting.
Fairness isn’t the relevant lens. Copyright isn’t the right lens either. This is purely might-makes-right, where the winner is whoever has the best offence and best defence.
It is only hypocritical when they bitch about things being unfair, or try to use copyright arguments in the court system.
Copyrighted works plainly have value for Anthropic. Why aren't they paying for that value?
As a vigorous, thrusting company surely Anthropic has the wherewithal to pay for it. And if they don't, if all they can do is steal, if all they represent is the theft of the labor of others, then what good are they?
I'm describing reality as it is, not how I wish the world to be. Copyright is a legal construct that makes intellectual works ownable. But those works aren't merely property; they're also culture. And borrowing from, building upon and transforming existing works has been fundamental to human creativity since the very beginnings of human creativity.
I support copyright in a narrow sense, but I think it's proving to be increasingly archaic, conceived for a 19th-century world of mechanical printing presses and far too absolutist for the 21st-century world of memes, sampling, and LLMs.
There is a difference in moderation policy. There is no difference in the intellectual poverty demonstrated by the purveyor of such insults. If anything, the opposite is true, since a target-rich subject like Musk requires no hyperbole to ridicule.
It's highly probable that Russia's top state-controlled hackers have been attempting to exploit/infiltrate SpaceX and Starlink for the past four years.
reply