By
–
I agree you can probably break it if you interact with it outside of "demo-worthy" settings, but there is undeniable progress too. https://t.co/dh8HDLUMmT
— Alex J. Champandard 🌱 (@alexjc) 5 août 2025
I agree you can probably break it if you interact with it outside of "demo-worthy" settings, but there is undeniable progress too.
By
–
Have LLMs hallucinate an API to your library zero-shot and try to minimize the distance.
By
–
Prototypes and publications from 10 years ago may seem prophetic, but I'd say most of it was obvious to many at the time.
— Alex J. Champandard 🌱 (@alexjc) 31 juillet 2025
The fun question is, what part of the "democratization" of "creativity" (good or bad) was not obvious 10 years ago? https://t.co/EyxpSeQ4IQ
Prototypes and publications from 10 years ago may seem prophetic, but I'd say most of it was obvious to many at the time. The fun question is, what part of the "democratization" of "creativity" (good or bad) was not obvious 10 years ago?
By
–
Hmm, seems obvious that even 3 random features connected to the previous highly-trained layers would have relevant signal? It's like extreme learning machines.
By
–
My theory is that Enterprise codebases have a very low density of functionality per character, so if you're doing Java or C++ on a million-line codebase — yeah I could see the frustration.
By
–
Notice how all the top influencers are saying the same thing now, the message is "Copyright is not the right tool to make policy changes for the future…" Clearly, it would be harmful if creators had rights!
By
–
Do I understand correctly that an independent expert reproduced an AI Artist's image and the only way to do that was to include R3's name in the prompt? Yeah, it shows intent and that the original model was likely trained on their work too?
By
–
It's important to distinguish non-expressive use (inputs not even covered by Copyright, which some AI novices claimed) and non-expressive purpose (output that "Adds No New Creative Content", e.g. Books) that can show 'transformative use' after prima facie infringement was found.
By
–
No, Brian is either senile or trolling. Sony was about contributory infringement, Fair Use analysis was thus done for private viewers. The Google Books case was deemed "non-expressive purpose" but their reproductions obviously contained expressions hence prima facie infringing.