The idea that Builder.ai was Indian workers being sold as AI wasn’t true, by the way. That was made up by a crypto influencer on twitter and copied by sloppy news sites. They were a consulting firm that also sold an AI product, with the two clearly separated.
I’m not sure if this is the point you mean to make, but Michio Kanu is one of the bigger cranks in physics communication. He said ion an (maybe the Joe Rigan interview?) that quantum computers would be able to act as a truth detector for AI. He wrote a whole book on quantum computing in fact despite clearly not understanding it at all[0].
I’m not sure where this belief came from, or why the people who believe it feel so strongly about it, but this is not generally true.
With the exception of GPL derivatives, most popular licenses such as MIT already include provisions allowing you to relicense or create derivative works as desired. So even if you follow the supposed norm that without an explicit license agreement all open source contributions should be understood to be licensed by contributors under the same terms as the license of the project, this would still allow the project owners to “rug pull” (create a fork under another license) using those contributions.
But given that Zed appears to make their source available under the Apache 2.0 license, the GPL exception wouldn’t apply.
Indeed, if you discount all the instances where it is true, it is not true.
From my understanding, Zed is GPL-3.0-or-later. Most projects that involve a CLA and have rugpull potential are licensed as some GPL or AGPLv3, as those are the licenses that protect everyone's rights the strongest, and thanks to the CLA trap, the definition of "everyone" can be limited to just the company who created the project.
Good catch on the license in that file. I went by separate documents in the repo that said the source is available “under the licenses documented in the repository”, and took that to mean at-choice use of the license files that were included.
I think the caveat to the claim that CLAs are only useful for rug pulls still important, but this is a case where it is indeed a relevant thing to consider.
Don’t make tools for cheating at games against real people. It’s antisocial.
—-
Cheating at games is antisocial. This means it is a behaviour that leads to a worse experience for a community of people to the benefit of those breaking the norms. For example, theft is antisocial.
I consider tools that make are dedicated to making antisocial behaviour easier to carry the same moral weight as the antisocial activity itself. Therefore I consider this tool to be antisocial, as is its creation.
Do you have an intent for this that doesn’t involve that antisocial behaviour, such as research or debugging? Or was that your intent?
At first I was a bit confused why this was a big deal given that Cosmogenic Radionuclide Dating[1] (which is based on cosmic rays) has been a thing for a while. But it turns out this uses an entirely different cosmogenic method based on atmospheric carbon (combined with Dendochronology from the tree rings). Very cool!
Not really, no. That's motivated by not getting impractically small gradients on the plateaus and spoiling the optimization properties when used for deep ANNs.
The sigmoids it replaced had a bit more neuroscience inspiration, but so oversimplified it's just barely.
