mdeck_

Sounds like a classic case of F.A.F.O.

The argument in this piece is a classic example of slippery slope-ism. The question of fair use, or of balancing between copyright maximalism and copyright minimalism, is a so-called line-drawing problem (given a spectrum of cases, deciding where the line of “ok” vs “not ok” should be). The article says that ANY decision in favor of the photographer/against Warhol would basically ruin fair use doctrine.

This proposition has barely a hint of truth in it. Especially considering how clever lawyers, SCOTUS justices included, can be in distinguishing one case from the next.

I’d hardly be worried.

I’m not sure how it could possibly be useful to anyone to hear that they shouldn’t be in the place where a nuclear explosion occurs.

> Between late 1978 and early 1981, drivers in the U.S. saw the price at the pump nearly double from 63 cents to $1.31 a gallon.

Not sure how that change would amount to NEARLY doubling...

Next perhaps they can get Wolf Blitzer to stop shouting literally every sentence that comes out of his mouth as if it is all “BREAKING NEWS.”

> I think if you have the luxury of assuming every token is a dictionary word, you can do much better by simply encoding each word as its index in the dictionary.

Then you have to store the dictionary.

The ultimate significance of the patents contained within the portfolio (how they will empower business plans, why they may be quite valuable) will not necessarily be apparent from simply looking at the technology described. And a potential buyer would always want to keep these hidden things (essentially its own business plans) secret.

Comparing ALL software developers to builders or veterinarians isn’t fair. Veterinarians are continually holding animals’ lives in their hands. Builders almost invariably build things that can fall on their head and kill them—so a license is needed. If you just want to build a doll house, though, no one is going to require a license.

Software developers sometimes work on critical infrastructure—and licensing there does make sense. But requiring a license for me to build a silly web app seems like a classic example of what people complain about when they complain about unnecessary government regulation.

> It sounds like you would need to be exceptionally careful that your meta-process didn't "find" some signal in pure noise (via re-using test sets and so on).

It sounds like you’re actually talking about ordinary levels of carefulness in this (ML) context.

This seems to be precisely what the article says.

> The attempt to use computers to assist in racial classification tasks has helped sharpen the issues because computers can't deal with fuzzy concepts. If you try to define an ethnic code that is logically complete, consistent, and determinable for every person using current technology, you find that you can't.

> There seems to be a silent conspiracy to deny the existence of mixed racial groups in the United States. Most such people have acquiesced to this conspiracy and don't even think of themselves in those terms. Instead, they go along with the idea that they are members of one of the races recognized by the government. In fact, they often identify with a traditional race that represents only a small fraction of their genetic heritage!