I got a DMCA notice for my fork (https://github.com/cg505/claude-code) which I have not touched since May. Obviously, it didn't include the leaked source code.
The DMCA notice published by GitHub includes this:
> Note: Because the reported network that contained the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories, and the submitter alleged that all or most of the forks were infringing to the same extent as the parent repository, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire network of 8.1K repositories, inclusive of the parent repository.
2. They might get into trouble charging users to generate some other entity's IP, so they may revenue-share with the IP owner.
They're probably still losing money even if they charge for video generation, but recouping some of that cost, even if they revshare, is better than nothing.
You got the last paragraph wrong. They need to negotiate with rights holders on the revenue split. They’re hoping that the virality aspect will be more important to rights holders than money alone, but they will of course also give money to rights holders.
Or, in other words: here’s Sam Altman saying to Disney “you should actually be grateful if people generate tons of videos with Disney characters because it puts them front and center again.”, but then he acknowledges that OpenAI also benefits from it and therefore should pay Disney something. But this will be his argument when negotiating for a lower revenue share, and if his theory holds, then brands that don’t enter into a revenue share with OpenAI because they don’t like the deal terms may lose out on even more money and attention that they would get via Sora.
The voice is really good, especially small details like sharp air intake before a response to indicate tone. I guess the conversation topics weren't amazing but that's not really the point.
The problem I have is that if you want to engage with something like this, you need to pretend it's a human. As they say, the uncanny valley was pretty much successfully crossed. And to be honest, I don't want to pretend I'm talking to a human for a whole bunch of reasons.
The technically aspects are really impressive, but I think "pretending to be a human" in this way is a pretty scary goal. The cognitive dissonance was too strong and it was hard for me to continue a conversation very long at all. What does it even mean to have a conversation without theory of mind?
People talk a lot about how transformative AI will be but rarely from the point of view it will have on society when interactions like this are 10x more realistic and ubiquitous.
I imagine an agent with this kind of conversational capability but better. And then I imagine that coupled with a video model that presents a proper talking head that is pretty much indistinguishable from a real one
Then what if these personalities were highly configurable to your tastes, had a very long memory and were so cheap and available you could build an entire customised social circle from them.
This is a bizarre nightmare for us but will become the norm for future generations. As rigid and inflexible as it is, my kids even had a hard time understanding Alexa is not real at first, and they have come accustomed to this style of conversational interface from a young age, I think about that but in 30 years for their kids.
If I listen to robot voices for to long it gets unbearable. The fascinating part imho is that human voices apparently have other communication channels that bypass the conscious mind. Like regional accents contain a kind of collective mood but more granular. It must therefore be possible to encode a beneficial feeling into the robot voices. We could all be Irish :)
The good-faith interpretation of Musk's actions goes something like: "All of these cuts are consistent with the overall goal and eventually planned. So, Musk is just cutting things as he thinks of them."
Unfortunately, it means that the best way to avoid getting cut, for now, is just to avoid drawing Musk's attention, for any reason. The ISS thing from yesterday [1] is a clear example - something that was already planned and has just been bumped up.
To be clear, I don't really buy this interpretation, especially since over the years Musk has shown himself to be quite vindictive.
I don't want this to be a defense of elon musk. Everything he is currently doing is unequivocally wrong and he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
That said, there have been multiple cases where 'unconstitutional' actions had good faith interpretations. The obvious one being the Underground Railroad. Less obvious was Lincoln suspending habius corpus in 1861 (I don't know if the term executive order existed back then, but this sure felt like one). It would be another two years before Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 was passed.
Overused? Sure, beyond belief. But dropping a "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" feels particularly appropriate right about now.
It is interesting, though, that a portion of the article is dedicated to discussing how it's important to make the proof simpler and more generally available. Although machine-verifiability is surely a good goal, it can't replace humans being able to comprehend the proofs as well. In this world where proof can all be verified, we may be more confident in our mathematical knowledge, but we'll also be unable to generate new knowledge.
There are a ton of networks (think big corporate networks, schools, shared apartment wifi) that enforce too many weird port restrictions. Many of those places rarely get network or config updates. I don't think it's as bad as IPv6, but there are a lot of people for whom it isn't going to just work out of the box.
Gnome 3 has been out for 9 years now, which is longer than the time between the releases of Gnome 2 and 3. I don't think there is a lot of config churn. (It may have been worse in the early days of Gnome 3.)
reply