Did the fix end up working in the end, or did restoring everything from backups mean that the fix didn't work out either? (I don't use Jerboa or any other lemmy apps, so mainly just curious.)

Sentient, spacefaring bees, according to the article! Not what I was expecting but still, sounds pretty intriguing!

Agreed. Strong (and effectively enforced) worker protections are just as important as tech-specific safety regulations. Nobody should feel like they need to put themselves into a risky situation to make work happen faster, regardless of whether their employer explicitly asks them to take that risk or (more likely) uses other means like unrealistic quotas to pressure them indirectly.

There are certainly ways to make working around robots safer, e.g. soft robots, machine vision to avoid unexpected obstacles in the path of travel, inherently limiting the force a robot can exert, etc... And I'm all for moving in the direction of better inherent safety, but we also need to make sure that safer systems don't become an excuse for employers to expose their workers to more risky situations (i.e. the paradox of safety).

Some pretty interesting ideas. I was unaware that anything was living in the Atacama salt deposits, which certainly lends some credence to the idea that something could be pulling moisture out of the air on Mars, thin as it is.

That's a real mood, yeah.

I just recently decided to stick with mine. I was having a lot of doubts: feeling like I wasn't making and progress, like I wouldn't actually be able to finish the projects I started, impostor syndrome shit, etc. I'm happy I decided to stick with it. I just cleared some big milestones and I'm in the middle of a nice long vacation now, and I'm feeling excited again about my work.

On the other side of things, I've got a friend who decided to leave his PhD program with a masters a few years ago. He's now heading up product development for a robotics startup, doing quite well for himself.

I don't think there're any wrong answers here. Do what will make you happiest. Maybe you just need a vacation, maybe you're ready to move on. And remember that education is never wasted: even if you decide not to finish out the PhD, you've still learned a lot and that's valuable with or without the piece of paper and title.

Best wishes, friend, whichever way you decide to go ♥

Report 'em too, if you're not already! It helps the mods and the admin team find them so that site-wide bans can be issued.

It seems like you're working under the core assumption that the trained model itself, rather than just the products thereof, cannot be infringing?

Generally if someone else wants to do something with your copyrighted work – for example your newspaper article – they need a license to do so. This isn't only the case for direct distribution, it includes things like the creation of electronic copies (which must have been made during training), adaptations, and derivative works. NYT did not grant OpenAI a license to adapt their articles into a training dataset for their models. To use a copyrighted work without a license, you need to be using it under fair use. That's why it's relevant: is it fair use to make electronic copies of a copyrighted work and adapt them into a training dataset for a LLM?

You also seem to be assuming that a generative AI model training on a dataset is legally the same as a human learning from those same works. If that's the case then the answer to my question in the last paragraph is definitely, "yes," since a human reading the newspaper and learning from it is something that, as you say, "any intelligent rational human being" would agree is fine. However, as far as I know there's not been any kind of ruling to support the idea that those things are legally equivalent at this point.

Now, if you'd like to start citing code or case law go ahead, I'm happy to be wrong. Who knows, this is the internet, maybe you're actually a lawyer specializing in copyright law and you'll point out some fundamental detail of one of these laws that makes my whole comment seem silly (and if so I'd honestly love to read it). I'm not trying to claim that NYT is definitely going to win or anything. My argument is just that this is not especially cut-and-dried, at least from the perspective of a non-expert.

Well I hear what you're saying, although I don't much appreciate being told what I should want the outcome to be.

My own wants notwithstanding, I know copyright law is notoriously thorny – fair use doubly so – and I'm no lawyer. I'd be a little bit surprised if NYT decides to raise this suit without consulting their own lawyers though, so it stands to reason that if they do indeed decide to sue then there are at least some copyright lawyers who think it'll have a chance. As I said, we'll see.

Yeah I've heard a lot of people talking about the copyright stuff with respect to image generation AIs, but as far as I can see there's no fundamental reason that text generating AIs wouldn't be subject to the same laws. We'll see how the lawsuit goes though I suppose.

Exciting stuff. I've long since vowed never to pre-order anything from Bethesda ever again though, so I'll be waiting to hear what the vibe is once other folks start playing it. Right now it very much seems like it could either be great or disappointing. We'll see in a couple weeks' time I s'pose

I've always heard that "organic" farming is really not especially different from conventional farming, including from some folks in agriculture. Like, they still use chemical pesticides and stuff, just different ones that are less effective and so sprayed more heavily.

I don't have anything to back that up with though, so there's a reasonable chance you have better info here. I'd be interested to know more if you've got standards and such you can share?

Flash games will work again? Moving away from NFTs? Well dang, I might just make a new neopets account! Lots of nostalgia there, it'd be cool to mess around with again after all these years.