CyberRabbi

You cited two sources that are irrelevant to your claim. Neither Sony's nor Microsoft's hardware profits have any necessary bearing on Nintendo's.

That has nothing to do with fair use. That is a misuse of the term which has a specific meaning in the context of justifying derivative works of copywritten material.

You are allowed to make an emulator because there is nothing that says it's illegal. Under the DMCA, you are not allowed to distribute tools which help in the circumvention of copyright, which is what this tool does. It allows people to bypass the copyright protections Nintendo has put in place to prevent people from running copied games without permission.

Thank you for confirming that fair use is not a right. Second, yes it absolutely concerns derivative works as it is a concept in the domain of copyright. While not every violation of copyright is a derivative work, only derivative works are justified under fair use. For instance, piracy can never be justified under fair use. The new work must be transformative to a significant degree.

This topic on the other hand has nothing to do with fair use as there is no derivative work being created. It also isn't a copyright violation, it's a violation of the DMCA. Specifically it violates the DMCA's provision that prohibits distributing tools used to violate the copyright of other work.

Why would they do that when their business is selling hardware? You make it seem like they are being foolish or unreasonable. They aren't Netflix

What are "fair use rights" in this context? Fair use specifically concerns creating derivative works. You don't by default have a right to use Nintendo's IP however you like, no matter how virtuous or benign you think your use is. You are only licensed to use their products in the ways that they permit.

Can I still use their trademark if I train my AI algorithm on it first then use it to generate the trademark?

The popular LSD and psychadelic advocacy online and elsewhere is an expression of the mainstream ideology. The foundation of our collective ideology tells us these drugs should have some profound life-altering and improving effect. Obviously, when examined critically, the premise is ridiculous on its face. Everyone I know who regularly does these types of drugs is not really doing much else with their lives. As for Steve Jobs, he was not a regular LSD user, he was a baby boomer who bragged about using it to make himself seem unique or different, like many of his generation.

You see a similar sort of popular collective delusion with people who claim Cannabis cures cancer or other disease. Sorry but hard no. There is no such thing as "Medical Marijuana." It's simply marketing and propaganda to get the public into associating virtue with Cannabis use, with the end goal of eventually changing policy.

Good point. While it seems obvious to me that LLMs can never be anything more than fancy Markov chains, in my experience it seems the majority of human "logic" does not operate much differently. Very rare to encounter someone who is able to think or speak critically. Most regurgitate canned responses based on keywords.

> In practice, non-virtual function calls are reliably compiled to fairly efficient code while virtual calls are much less reliable.

Like I said, this echoes the conventional wisdom that most C++ developers seem to retain. The compiler landscape has changed since that wisdom was formed, since the advent of LTO and devirtualization optimizations.

> If you're programming in C++, you probably do care about this level of performance, and in that case, it's nice to program in a style that guarantees it instead of hoping for a sufficiently smart compiler.

Neither implementation guarantees any particular sequence of assembly instructions. Both require hoping that a sufficiently smart compiler will compile it to a sufficiently optimal sequence of instructions.

Oh no!

> I wouldn’t be surprised if we live in such a world in the next decade.

We won't live in that world in the next decade or even in the next 100 years. The technology upon which GPT is built is a dead-end in terms of human-level intelligence.

GPT is an elaborate parrot. As convincing as it is, it's not actually fully capable of doing most if not all tasks that competent humans can do. The largest takeaway for me is that it has shown that intelligence can be mimicked pretty well and perhaps many people are more like parrots than they are "intelligent" creatures.

hi dang, sorry to be annoying but i have no other way to reach you. I've contacted you at [email protected] over my account but haven't received a reply. Did you receive my email? if not, please email me at the address in my account at your earliest convenience. thank you.

> just overall seems like a genuine person.

Yet he admitted to deceiving a customer in that same anecdote