I think that is a bit revisionist. Linus hated CVS and happily used Bitkeeper as he found it useful. His contention then was that patchsets were superior to CVS. Having never used CVS, I cannot comment on how bad it was, but he put his money where his mouth was and invented Git (after a conflict between Bitkeeper and the open source community resulted in the free license for kernel developers being withdrawn.

In any case, the rapid fall off of CVS and Subversion proved his point.

That will only be true if "good-guy" programmers decide against using tools that can help them address problems as fast as or faster than the bad guys can find them.

I think the test of copyright infringement is or should be simple. Is the code the same as mine. That should be the same whether the code was written by an LLM, by some code monkeys or by a human.

If people are insisting that the test should
Be whether code went into the LLM sausage machine, then they are not worried about copyright infringement.

Google is not selling stories written by others. They, and the other companies in AI, are creating AI tools that learn from existing materials and are allowing users to create new works using them.

I am not sure I am happy with the extension of copyrights to any use of the material. I am also not happy with the idea that the author of a work has to authorise every different type of use of their material. A copyright should, in my opinion, be about who is allowed to make copies of a work and then sell it, or license it, to others. I think it is a (primarily American) mistake to give authors the rights to decide how licensees are allowed to use the works licensed to them. I do not think this should be a principle of copyright.

Donâ(TM)t get me wrong, I think authors need some protection. But I think what we are now seeing is greed masquerading as principle.

I am sure that folks here would be unhappy if Microsoft started insisting that Xbox games were for private use and any esports (e.g. Forza) required a separate license.

"Pepe" should be "people". Clearly!

Pepe are using these tools to write and create for people. Is a lot of it crap? Absolutely! But there are just tools and in the hands of genuinely talented people they can be amazing means of self expression, while not so talented people might only be capable of producing very derivative work that is of no interest to actual audiences.

AI might also be very useful to weed out non-original stories as part of the evaluation for contests like this.

Seriously, is the point of storytelling to tell good stories or to write them without AI.

Maybe AI means a Dan Brown can now write more engaging prose, while providing his readers with original stories. Maybe this is a win-win situation.

I think the only qualification for a writing award should be whether the stories are original and / or good.

However, UKâ(TM)s GDP growth has been in line with the EU. Doing better than Germany and about the same as France.

The UK has many problems and Brexit is not the main one in my opinion. Itâ(TM)s a convenient scapegoat for a political class that is essentially Europhile. (All the main parties supported staying in the EU during the referendum.) The UKâ(TM)s problems are not caused by being in or out of the EU. They are fundamentally because there is a political class that does not have the wherewithal to come up with solutions to the challenges faced in the 21st century. There challenges are the rise of China (and India too), America, ageing populations etc. These manifest in de-industrialisation, high house prices, high migration etc. If in the EU, they will just point to the EU and say their hands are tied. If outside the EU they will say it is because they are not in the EU.

Our politicians (of all stripes) are not up to the job, and that will unfortunately result in their more opportunistic peers proposing simple sounding solutions (such as either Brexit or rejoining) that donâ(TM)t solve our problems but always conveniently, whatever happens, gives them a scapegoat for their failures.

Maybe Meta should include a wireless command that automatically shuts down the recording. Then anyone who does not wish to be recorded surreptitiously can have their device send this command to nearby Meta ray bans.

And anyone with Meta ray bans will have to ask for permission to record, and specifically ask people to turn off their blocking signals.

Appleâ(TM)s Lightning connector has some limitations, chief among which is that there is a maximum wattage they could safely pass through a connector that had naked contact points.

That connector was never going to be good enough for the range that USB-C is used for.

Perhaps, the solution is to begin to require that any code that is submitted is accompanied by comprehensive documentation and tests to demonstrate its appropriateness otherwise it will be ignored / sent to /dev/null. This would also be good for human created code.

Open source does need to embrace AI coding otherwise it will become irrelevant

That is so not true. There is no wind or solar installation anywhere in the world that can match actual demand (at scale) in the way that coal can for a competitive price. Wind/solar + natural gas can almost certainly, but not wind/solar and battery.

If that could happen, then why doesn't it happen now? There is nothing stopping anyone make movies that way today. The fact that it doesn't happen suggests it is not really viable.

I know that it is not front-running in the strictest sense. However, they are essentially using information about market dislocations, and their speed advantages to put themselves in a position to profit from trades they know are almost certain to happen. I do not see why exchanges couldn't just share information directly and fill orders with each others without having HFTers put themselves in the middle.

I donâ(TM)t think we need a tax on transactions.

I donâ(TM)t mind HFT if they are genuinely responding to what they observe to be asset misprints. Is the front running of othersâ(TM) orders that I think is most egregious.

Therefore my solution would be to timestamp all trades, and have a computer solve for the fairest price based on the order of the trades after a small delay. So if a HFT company sees a big order in one location, and they try to front run it, they will be put in the back of the line, and the orders will be filled after the big order they were trying to front run is executed.

To be clear, they would still be allowed to cancel their order, but that cancellation needs to be sent before someone else has accepted their order.