You’re more right than you might have expected, but not because it’s a fallacy or misleading. You noticed something important in how it all works: time is a dimension, but it doesn’t act like “up” or “forwards”.
This doesn’t make it less of a dimension or a hindrance to understanding, it’s an observation that leads to: there are different types of dimensions.
Typically called time like and space like, they can also be thought of as “one directional” and “two directional”, although a physicist somewhere is (correctly) coughing politely and glaring at some of the shit photons get up to at the thought of one directional time.

You’re thinking of time as a parameter, which is how it is in classical mechanics. It’s a different category of thing, but it technically makes the system 4d.
When you start looking at how light moves and relativity you find that you actually need time to act much more like another direction because it no longer defined an order or sequence, and you get stuff like “time slows down when move faster in space because acceleration shifts your movement vector in space time”.

It’s even simpler in math, because a dimension is simply a number required to specify a point in a space. If you cared to you could use “left” as your parameter and talk about how a thrown ball changes position in time, up, and forward as a function of left.
Then you could do some real math and use that function as a point in some space and talk about how the different components are different dimensional aspects of the infinite dimensional polynomial function space.

A dimension is “simply” a direction that can be changed without changing any of the other directions.
What people often mean is a spatial dimension in “normal” geometry, where “up” is independent from “left” and “forward”.

A square is a two dimensional shape. It can have points on it specified in two coordinates.
When you hold a block, you’re holding a 3 dimensional shape. It takes 3 coordinates to specify a point in it.
When you draw a 3d cube, you’re drawing the 2d “shadow”, or projection, of that 3d shape into 2d.

A tesseract has the same relationship with a cube as the cube has to the square. What we often see represented is the 2d shadow of the 3d shadow of the 4d object.
On it’s own it doesn’t tell you much about the shape. What tells you more is seeing how the lines and points change as you rotate in 4d.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/mzycqzgt

This seems like a fine little tool for seeing stuff.

The 3d shadow of the tesseract isn’t the tesseract though. We can’t actually see them, only the shadow. Thinking hard and looking at the shadows changes as we move the 4d points can let’s us intuit how they work though.

Whoah, I never said I wasn’t interested in the exchange, only that I wasn’t interested in the topic.
As someone who’s extremely insistent that it’s grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I’m shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you’re persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else’s point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there’s no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That’s abundantly clear.

My point is that you’re being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you’re directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.

I believe what they’re referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.

Because of the untested nature of the situation, it’s unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.

We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.

This image seems to explain it.

Proton is the windows compatibility layer. Lepton is the android compatibility layer. FEX translates x86 (most desktop computers) applications to run on ARM (most mobile devices).

Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.

It’s not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it’s not the “rebellion” people want to make it out to be.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/2024_Reader_and_Donor_Experiences/Content_Discovery/Wikimania_2024,_"Written_by_AI"_How_do_editors_and_machines_collaborate_to_create_content

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries

It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it’s supposed to go. It’s not resistance, it’s all of them being on the same team and talking.

Eh, that’s not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn’t research, it’s just indicating what something is.

The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that’s representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.

It’s similar to the various charts and animations.

Yes, but…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download

That’s because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.

I don’t love an abstract legal identity. I’m capable of being happy with institutions, the culture composed if the people living there, and adoring the natural splendor.
Right now I’m actively angry at the institutions, a huge number of people have taken a sharp turn towards fascism, and I’ve got no problems with the forest still.
Me and the forest are cool, and that’s part of why I’m mad at the institutions.

I have no desire to live in the forest because, if nothing else, that’s not good for the forest. Then the people who opted to live there became insane, and decided to largely gut all of the institutions, and make it easier to destroy the forest.

“I live in a state of natural splendor, and I’m willing to fight to let you cut it down, splash me with mercury , and blot out the sun with smoke because I don’t have healthcare and fuck you for asking. It’s the refugees who are the problem”.

Oh my God, no. “Great place to live if you want you all your neighbors to be frighteningly conservative, the closest store to be a 30 minute drive, and the nearest hospital to be an hour away and shutting down because their public funding got cut”.

And you didn’t even read past the first sentence I see.

Saying they’re the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they’re both manipulating kinetic energy.

It can totally be fine for your needs, and secure while it does so, and not be two factors.

It’s a question of what’s required for access. In this case, they would need your password and to have had some manner of device access at some point to steal the value used by 1password to verify you at one point had the secret key. Someone with a keylogger from a random untargeted malware infection could plausibly get sufficient information. It’s really good 1 factor.

To be two factor there would need to be a requirement for two factors to be demonstrated at auth time. For example, if 1password encrypted the passkeys in such a way that the passkey could not ever leave the device, like via certain types of hardware backed key storage, then unlocking the vault is proof of something you know, and the usage of the signature is proof you have the chip.
The trickery comes about in the techniques available to move the passkey between encrypted hardware devices without it ever being exposed or loosing the “device you control” assurances.

For the record, I use 1password. Just not for passkeys on desktop. I prefer the Bluetooth connection to my phone, since phones currently do a much better job providing uniform targets for what’s needed to provide the proper two factor for something like passkeys.

… How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They’re both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.

At the end of the day, it’s all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.

In one case it’s saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.

Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.

Upsampling methods have been produced that don’t use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.

Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. “I want to see your art better” as opposed to “I want to make your art better”.

There are secure ways to transfer the key that preserve the properties that make it useful as two factors in one.

Basically, the device will only release the key in an encrypted fashion readable by another device able to make the same guarantees, after the user has used that device to authenticate to the first device using the key being transferred.
A backup works the same way.

You can do that without an extension. There’s a bunch of different protocols that let you, for example, use your phone as the authenticator.
You can log in with your phone on a computer you’ve never used before by scanning a QR code and credentials never leave your device.

My passkeys are tied to my phone, which I use via the browser and OS. I keep them in my password manager running on the phone. My password manager supports the open spec for securely migrating credentials between vendors.

It may be difficult to believe but they want you to use them because they’re legitimately significantly better.

Users are silly. They blame Microsoft for bad passwords. They blame Google for forgotten passwords. They blame Facebook when they click on a phishing link. They blame apple when apple “lets” someone who they gave their password to see their pictures. They blame apple when they don’t let the user in just because they forgot their password and every recovery mechanism.

Everyone involved has a significant issue with passwords because they cost them user satisfaction, credibility, or money directly. The reason cross vendor transfer has been slow is because everyone wants to be the leader, since if everyone follows your lead you get to make it work better with your stuff.

That ones because users like choice. They need to look up who you are to know how you’ve chosen to authenticate. At least, that’s how it started. Some could be doing it because the big kids are, but that’s why the big kids do.
And they support choice because businesses want to use their login infrastructure and refuse to share. So you enter “user@businessOrUniversity.com.edu” and it forwards you to your institutional login.