you comment did no such thing, in a way that would be recognizable by anyone else. it probably would have been a good comment if you did expand on that though, in some meaningful way.
I use ai daily but reciting the talking points that killed what open source used to mean and using them to further separate original authors from the impact of their work
That’s ai pilled
I write code under the mit license
I know the risk
Helping humans still makes it worth it
And technically these AI companies should have a /licenses route that lists every MIT piece of code their model was trained on.
That’s literally the only expectation I have from anyone as an active author using the MIT license, getting cited.
I think the legal AI defense is that the models themselves are a bastardized form of dynamic linking. I say the models are statically linked though, so they need to spill their sources.
That’d be my question to the person I disrespected:
Why should I, as someone that’s not hypothetically giving back in code, continue to do so, when the social contract has been broken, where the always minimal expectation has been: Say my name?
USDA administers SNAP, which provides food aid to over four hundred thousand families in the state. That's one of the programs this announcement is talking about suspending.
From a U.S. standpoint: Licensing is a function of copyright. A work not subject to copyright cannot be licensed productively as-is, as the public domain quality of the work is a trivial and conclusive defense against a licensor’s claims of copyright violation. Fair use is not subject to copyright. Since licensing enforcement is only possible with an applicable copyright, enforcement cannot be completed against fair uses, as copyright law is not applicable to fair uses and therefore licensing enforcement has no legal basis. However, a judgment may overturn a defense of fair use brought against a defendant in a licensing enforcement claim, which would then subject the defendant’s use to copyright law and thus to license enforcement.
It’s midnight now, so you’re on your own to dig up and review specific instances of relevant case law, or to contrast with non-U.S. laws. Licensing above refers to i.e. LICENSE files of the specific sort that this post is about ("MIT Non-AI License"); other definitions of licensing, as well as e.g. DMCA exceptions, exist that might be of interest for you to explore further. I believe there’s been a handful of cases related to AI and fair use this past year, but as with all such defenses, unique circumstances are common enough that I hesitate to suggest any future outcome as 100% certain without much more case law than AI has today. (I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
I never really understood how GPIO is a killer feature with them. There are so many ways to get GPIO, from $5 USB dongles to any microcontroller/dev board that's ever exists. What's special about Raspberry Pi GPIO that I'm missing?
The only case I can think of is very heavy compute that relies on low latency GPIO related to that compute?
The low latency is the reason why the PiStorm (Amiga CPU accelerator) project works so well on a Pi 2, 3 or 4. (Pi 5 is no longer suitable since the GPIO is now the other side of a PCI-E bus and thus suffers significantly higher latency than on previous models, despite being much faster in terms of throughput.)
In general the best part of the Pi is that it's so stable as a platform. Everyone has the same hardware and generally the same OS so guides online just work - it may be one of the if not the best Linux on the desktop experience I've used personally.
Along with that the gpio is there and ample so it's extremely easy to just start using it.
I do argue an esp 8266 or esp32 are better for a development microcontroller but you have to muck with cabling it up before you can even load a program on it which is a few more extra steps than a Pi
> You're paying a premium for physical compatibility
No. There are a bunch of alternatives with some to full pin compatibility. Some being many times faster [1]. No new projects should use a new Raspberry Pi.
Your video rates the PI as 10 for support, 10 for ease of use and 7 for performance. Just the support and ease of use is enough. You're paying for a mature ecosystem where you know things work and you don't have to waste time struggling.
Thanks for the video. I just bought a RPI5 and was curious if this was a mistake, but after watching the whole 'I love PI' video, I am still okay with my choice.
It is good to know that there are other boards with better multi-thread performance and AI capabilities. However, there are also a few things I disagree with in the test setup, such as rating only multithread performance and giving the best single-thread performance the lowest overall rating. In addition, concluding the AI tests without the extension board for the RPI5 seems a bit weird.
So thank you for the video, but I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve and it is not a simple there you get more bang for your buck.
> we aren't talking about fictional images here, we are talking about photos of real people, many who are children,
is not compatible with what GP actually said
> it's clearly wrong when it concerns actual children
> No living creature was actually hurt when producing these images and cannot be hurt by them.
making these overly dramatic character attacks seem mostly silly
> you completely lack capacity for empathy and you should do some serious self-reflection. This is just a really vile and amoral view to hold.
> Advocating for the freedom to commit that kind of harm against other people is gross, and you should reconsider your views and how much care you have for other people.
GP edited their post to add that after everyone pointed out that that's what the entire thread is actually about and GP realised how disgusting they looked. Keep up.
This is false. They only added the "edit: " text, not anything I quoted. I know because I quoted the same in a now-deleted reply before the "edit: " text was added.
reply