This wouldn’t appear like this when upgrading the system with pacman. pacman does not automatically remove orphaned dependencies during upgrades. You have to query for them and remove them explicitly as a separate operation afterwards. So in the OP what we’re seeing is the new versions of packages themselves getting smaller.

I’m using pipewire with easyeffects and they both work great.

For pipewire I’ve installed all the available compatibility layers: pipewire-pulse, pipewire-alsa, pipewire-jack, as well as every lib32 variant. Without all of these some apps would not work via pipewire.

As for easyeffects, depending on your distro and how you install it, you might need to install the plugins separately. Otherwise the app will open but it won’t be able to actually apply any effects. First time I tried to use it I was confused about this.

That’s only really feasible for phones they knowingly send to regulators. The phone would have no practical way of knowing that I’m having staged conversations around it and keeping track of the ads I see.

But even if you’re right, that doesn’t change the fact that a lack of objective measurement means all these stories are unreliable.

Thanks for the heads up. I am aware of the spying issues with smartphones (and any way you access the internet really). This is part of the reason why I don’t think proving the unauthorized use of the microphone to spy is really important and why we need systemic solutions to prevent abuse in any case.

All online ads should have to say which filters they matched to advertise to you.

According to the Signal foundation, the reverse is true. They claim they got banned for revealing that info.

https://signal.org/blog/the-instagram-ads-you-will-never-see/

There are billions of smartphones out there. Thousands of people getting ads relevant to what they just discussed is normal. And it’s not just about the number of stories. It’s also about how unscientific these reports are as well. If you want to come up with actually useful evidence you would have to test this multiple times to prove it’s not random and you would also have to objectively measure the effect. You need to show a significant increase in the probability of getting a relevant ad, which in turn means you need to know what the baseline probability of getting one is (when the phone has not been allowed to spy on you).

All that being said, I don’t think proving that smartphones spy on us is all that useful. The fact that it can happen very easily is already a problem. Security and privacy are protected when we design systematic solutions that prevent abuse. They are not protected in unregulated systems where we might sometimes prove abuse has happened after the fact. There’s plenty wrong with a modern smartphone regardless of whether it happens to be spying on you right now.

Is the bootloader really that important for a lost phone? If someone finds your phone can’t they just tear it apart and read the storage with external tools? A locked bootloader sounds more like an anti-tampering measure and not for protecting your phone’s content after it’s lost.

You mean, I’m making an argument. Because yes. I am. I don’t see why this negative framing is necessary nor why this is noteworthy enough to bring up, unless you really just want to make me look bad for no apparent reason.

I don’t understand how you expect me to not point out that you are using inequivalent concepts interchangeably and reaching conclusions different to what you initially stated.

No, seriously this the only part of the comment that is relevant:

They are what the AI is designed to extract, not Mario as a totality.

And it is stated as fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Here I’ll make it simple. Do you disagree on any of the below statements?

• There is a combination of elements that is protected by copyright regardless of whether any completely individual element would be protected. This “Mario-ness” or “totality of Mario” or whatever you want to call it.
• The Mario picture contains the “Mario-ness”.
• The prompt does not include most of those elements and very clearly does not contain the “Mario-ness”.

If any of the above seem false to you, explain why. Otherwise explain where this Mario-ness in the image came from. Explain how your answer relates to the initial statement that models detect empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

That is the only thing that would be on topic. Everything else is just rambling. If you don’t argue in favor of your position I reacted to, or if you don’t understand the counter-point and respond clearly to it, then why are you replying to me at all?

Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. Why you think people probably plagiarize is doubly irrelevant then.

Analysis is definitely relevant, since to create a work that does not infringe on copyright

Show me literally any example of the defendant’s use of “analysis” having any impact whatsoever in a copyright infringement case or a law that explicitly talks about it, or just stop repeating that it is in any way relevant to copyright.

But bring them all together in one place again without adding new patterns

Wrong. The “all together” and “without adding new patterns” are not legal requirements. You are constantly trying to push the definition of copyright infringement to be more extreme to make it easier for you to argue.

you generally can take ideas from a copyrighted work, but not the expression of those ideas

Unfortunately, an AI has no concept of ideas, and it simply encodes patterns, whatever they might happen to be. Again, you’re morphing the discussion to make an argument.

Mario’s likeness isn’t in the model, but it’s patterns are.

Mario’s likeness has to be encoded into the model in some way. Otherwise, this would not have been the image generated for “draw an italian plumber from a video game”. There is absolutely nothing in the prompt to push GPT-4 to combine those elements. There are also no “new” patterns, as you put it. That’s exactly the point of the article. As they put it:

Clearly, these models did not just learn abstract facts about plumbers—for example, that they wear overalls and carry wrenches. They learned facts about a specific fictional Italian plumber who wears white gloves, blue overalls with yellow buttons, and a red hat with an “M” on the front.

These are not facts about the world that lie beyond the reach of copyright. Rather, the creative choices that define Mario are likely covered by copyrights held by Nintendo.

This is contradictory to how you present it as “taking ideas”.

You have absolutely no legal basis to claim they are infringement

You’re mixing up different things. I’m saying that the image contains infringing material, which is hopefully not something you have to be convinced about. The production of an obviously infringing image, without the infringing elements having been provided in the prompt, is used to show how this information is encoded inside the model in some form. Whether this copyright-protected material exists in some form inside the model is not an equivalent question to whether this is copyright infringement. You are right that the courts have not decided on the latter, but we have been talking about the former. I repeat your position which I was directly responding to before:

What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

I don’t understand how an AI reading a bunch of books and rearranging some of those words into a new story, is different to a human author reading a bunch of books and rearranging those words into a new story.

Ok, let’s say for now that these things are actually similar. Is a human legally allowed to “rearrange those words” in any way they want? Not really, because they can’t copy stuff like characters or plot structure. Even if the copy is not verbatim, it has to avoid being “too similar”. It’s not always clear where the threshold is; that will be judged in court. But imagine if your were being sued for copyright infringement because of perceived similarities between your work and another creator’s. You go to court and say “Well I torrented the plaintiff’s work and studied it with the express intent to copy discernible patterns in it, then sell my work based on those patterns”. As long as the similarities are found to be valid, you’re most likely to lose. The fact that you’ve spent years campaigning how companies can save a lot of money by firing artists and hiring your pattern-replicating service instead probably wouldn’t help your case either. Well, that’s basically what an honest defense of AI against copyright infringement would be. So the question is, does AI actually produce output too similar to its training data? Well, this is an example of articles you can find on the topic…

So based on the above thoughts, do you feel like we hold AI generation to the same standard as we do human creators? It doesn’t seem so to me.

But there’s a lot of reasons why we should hold AIs to higher standards instead. Off the top of my head:

• AIs have been created exclusively to replicate patterns in existing works. This is not the only function people have. So we don’t have to wonder whether similarities between AI inputs and outputs are coincidental. We don’t have to worry about whether overbearing restrictions might inadvertently affect some other function.
• AIs have no feelings or needs. We don’t have to worry about causing direct harm to them and about protecting their rights. Forbidding a person from reading a book just in case they copy elements from it is obviously problematic, but restricting AI’s access to copyrighted work is not directly harmful in the same way.

No, not what I said at all. If you’re trying to say I’m making this argument I’d urge you (ironically) to actually analyze what I said rather than putting words in my mouth ;) (Or just, you know, ask me to clarify)

That was your implied argument regardless of intent.

Copyright infringement (or plagiarism) in it’s simplest form, as in just taking the material as is, is devoid of any analysis. The point is to avoid having to do that analysis and just get right to the end result that has value.

Completely wrong, which invalidates the point you want to make. “Analysis” and “as is” have no place in the definition of copyright infringement. A derivative work can be very different from the original material, and how you created the derivative work, including whether you performed whatever you think “analysis” means, is generally irrelevant.

What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

No it detects patterns. You already said it correctly above. And the problem is that some patterns can be copyrighted. That’s exactly the problem highlighted here and here. For copyright law, it doesn’t matter if, for example, that particular image of Mario is copied verbatim from the training data. The character likeness, which is encoded in the model because it is in fact a discernible pattern, is an infringement.

Yes if you completely ignore how data is processed and how the product is derived from the data, then everything can be labeled “data analysis”. Great point. So copyright infringement can never exist because the original work can always be considered data that you analyze. Incredible.

the AI companies have a pretty good defense in the fact analyzing publicly viewable information is a pretty deep rooted freedom that provides a lot of positives to the world

They are not “analyzing” the data. They are feeding it into a regurgitating mechanism. There’s a big difference. Their defense is only “good” because AI is being misrepresented and misunderstood.

I agree that we shouldn’t strive for more strict copyright. We should fight for a much more liberal system. But as long as everyone else has to live by the current copyright laws, we should not let AI companies get away with what they’re doing.

Take note Bluesky fans: Your “benevolent” controlling nonprofit can quickly become a for-profit if enough cash is thrown at the governing board…

Isn’t Bluesky an open-source implementation of an open protocol? And isn’t Bluesky already a for-profit organization? The point is you don’t trust the corporation. You trust the availability of the code and the protocol specification. People should be setting up instances just like they did with lemmy.

The article doesn’t explicitly state it, but the wording implies that this headline was not created by BBC. This appears to be a service running on Apple products producing its own summary of the news article. So the BBC didn’t get burned by something they did and that’s what they’re complaining about.

On HDMI 2.1, you can do 8K30fps before you have to compress the stream with DSC, which is “visually lossless”, so actually lossy. We don’t even have 5K120fps or 4K240fps without compression. These are common refresh rates for gaming. So you could say that the highest resolution that supports all use cases without compromises is 1440p. That’s definitely not enough even by today’s standards. I think you’re underestimating the time it takes for standards to reach widespread adoption. The average viewer is not going to have access to it until the technology is cheap and enough time has passed for at least a few hundred million units to have reached the market. If you think you’re going to be using it in 2030 or later for your “average broadcast”, then it needs to be designed today.

Of course HDMI is shit for reasons you mention. DisplayPort is better, but it’s not an open standard either and it supports DRM as well. But designing for higher bandwidth is necessary and it has nothing to do with HDMI’s problems.

Because patents cause issues for free software. Some examples:

• As far as I can tell, vlc is legal only because French law does not recognize software patents, see here.
• HDMI 2.1 support in AMDGPU is impossible, see here.
• I think Media Foundation is unsupported in Proton because of patents as well, though I’m having trouble finding a reliable source on that.

Of course on my Linux laptop Chrome wouldn’t update automatically either through the browser or from the command line

Can you be more specific? What are you running on the command line and what is the result? Normally, you would install Chrome via a package manager, and that package manager would be responsible for updating it.

Not even close. The paper is questioning LLMs ability to reason. The article talks about fundamental flaws of LLMs and how we might need different approaches to achieve reasoning. The benchmark is only used to prove the point. It is definitely not the headline.

For anyone stumbling onto this who actually wants to be educated, the science has practically unanimously agreed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity. No expert is unaware of the cycles that temporarily affect climate. They are well studied, modeled, and found to pale in comparison to human-made climate change. You can find comparisons between human and natural drivers, with sources from expert organizations and scientific studies, here and here. Funnily enough, the NOAA, which this commenter used as a source for El Niño and La Niña below, also hosts this article which literally starts by linking to a page that points out how climate change is mostly caused by humans.