I do not consider being a reasonably well adjusted member of society, and enforcing that, to be the responsibility of businesses and do not agree that we are all subsidizing a business’ ability to have nice things without people destroying them.
> I do not consider being a reasonably well adjusted member of society, and enforcing that, to be the responsibility of businesses
The correct read of “Corporations are people, my friend.” is that people are indeed responsible for individual corporate humanism - being moral in how they operate even inside a company - or expect social repercussions at minimum in return.
Having said that: I’m not 100% sure who should pay (and at what portions) for what’s being debated.
> When you said something, back then, the people around you in close proximity to you would have a very similar understanding of the words you use, especially in terms of magnitude, cultural context and nuances.
On the one hand, yes, I agree with you.
On the other hand, I’ve played the game of telephone. I can’t imagine a game of telephone played over multiple generations has any sort of fidelity.
Perhaps if your imagination included a game of telephone which includes multiple error correcting codes/mechanisms, when instruction in those mechanisms is part of the teaching, and when preserving the wording is valued by most/all participants in the game/culture/conversation?
Here is one example where knowledge was well maintained over 12000 years.
>valued by most/all participants in the game/culture/conversation
The question then becomes one of cultural stability over that length of time. I personally can't tell you anything about the cultural and technological stability of of the aboriginal cultures, all I can assume is they were far more stable than europe, north africa, and the middle east. These later groups I listed had an absolutely massive amount of cultural exchange, and other things like mass genocide over the centuries. The exchange of new concepts and ideas is a powerful force in shaping the stories we tell. When two groups of people exist together over longer periods of time with conflicting sets of stories one of the stories tends to fade and die, and most likely a mixed story is created (Christianity ate a lot of Pagan mythos this way).
It’s funny, this pattern is very similar to how I write code with AI these days.
I write almost every line but I have one or more agents always running against the changes alongside me evaluating correctness, suggesting approaches, auditing test coverage, etc.
I’ll also use it for grunt work refactors, scaffolding, resolving merge/rebase conflicts, etc.
Same thought here, GBA was the peak of mainstream 2D graphics for me. I look at games from that era and often times they have aged well, they still look ideal to me.
Hear hear. I’m so tired of this pixel art elitism (exhibited in the article) which asserts with certainty that our fondness for pixel art comes from viewing it distorted on CRTs.
The Game Boy was insanely popular, is part of many people’s introduction to and fondness for pixel art, and it had an LCD screen.
I was being facetious with that word, I don’t believe it literally.
> it's about historical accuracy.
Historical accuracy means recognising not everyone had the same experience. Yes, many remember pixel art from CRTs, but many also remember it from LCDs.
My criticism if of the idea that liking sharp pixels is “a kind of misdirected, anachronistic nostalgia”, a misremembering of the CRT days. Even before we consider LCDs, it is reductive to link this to nostalgia—pixel art is an art form that stands on its own.
And not just that; invoking the Game Boy here is not the closer many people think it is, given that its STN LCD screen was fuzzy (e. g. ghosting) yet also had this distinct, subdued lo-fi glow, almost like looking through a zoetrope. Somewhat analog to lo-fi CRT setups.
The ghosting on the original Game Boy did not blend pixel boundaries and did not affect static images. It looks nothing like a CRT and nothing like a zoetrope (which has sharp images and reasonably low sample-and-hold blur because of the strobing).
> The ghosting on the original Game Boy did not blend pixel boundaries and did not affect static images.
It still gives you, especially when factoring in the condition of the STN screen, a "fuzzy" picture and with its own lo-fi glow, analogous to a CRT setup. Which was the point. I owned a brick, from 1992 onwards.
> It looks nothing [...] like a zoetrope (which has sharp images and reasonably low sample-and-hold blur because of the strobing).
"Sharp images" is certainly not the experience I had when looking through 'em at country fairs back in East Germany in the mid-to-late 80s.
While the Sonic waterfall is probably deliberate, I find it more likely that people have always preferred the highest resolution and the crispest graphics they can afford.
Christianity (Catholicism) derived this as well. John Scotus Eriugena in the 800s.
Apocatastasis
The thesis goes something like: God is timeless. Time is necessary for change. In order to experience change, God creates universes that have time and descends into these lower states of existence. This gives rise to conscious beings - they’re literally small disconnected slices of God that descended to our state of existence. When you die, you “roll up” back into God taking your lived experience with you.
He was posthumously condemned in 1225 with an order for his books to be burned.
I'm no theologian but I don't really think this coheres with standard Catholic doctrine. Typically, we say that God is being itself, pure and uncaused. All things maintain their very existence through God. We know that God has intellect because the world we reside in is intelligible. God has no need to experience change or time because he actualizes their very existence, and in order to do so, must already have perfect knowledge of it. Humans, even our souls, are created beings and are not any more a part of God than anything else that exists. Jesus was unique in that he was a hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature, and even though he was an indivisible union, these natures nevertheless remained distinct.
Edit: I wrote this response before you added that this was specific to the theology of John Scotus Eriugena.
Yes. He was posthumously condemned in 1225 with an order for his books to be burned. When his works resurfaced in the 1600s, he was added to the banned books index.
Edit: Ah, yeah, this was just one thinker. Early catholic thought is diverse and fascinating. A lot of work went into reconciling religion (and the rest of society really) with the “science” of the time. There is a lot of fun exploratory work trying to reconcile Catholicism with other philosophies, only some of which became cannon. It’s one of the reasons why the scientific revolution was so jarring for all of society - it threw thousands of years of convergent philosophy across society into a paradigm shift when we were forced to abandon things like the 4 element theory.
IIUC, the question at hand is: does training require a special, separate, license or can you legally acquire a work and then use it for training?
I.E. Anthropic can not pirate a bunch of books and then use those for training, but it can legally purchase the same books and then use those purchased books for training.
> does training require a special, separate, license or can you legally acquire a work and then use it for training?
No. But it's not about current precedence or legality because the legal framework for accurately (according to general moral and societal acceptance) is decades behind where it needs to be. The courts will decide over the next few years.
reply