Re: We've all been there.
As monkeys are involved it's clearly a combination of sitting and swinging and as blaming is involved somebody's going to have to swing for it.
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Definitely not. He was a well-regarded defence lawyer with a self-deprecating sense of humour. I certainly regarded him well after he eventually objected to the prosecution leader cross-examining* his own witness, namely me.
* No way was I going to put any great weight on hair comparison as he wanted me to do. I could never understand why the FBI lab seemed to make a big thing about hair comparisons; years after I read an article proving that their evidence was unreliable.
Slight problem with that being that after nearly 40 years I can't remember the names - in fact I'm not sure I even knew all of them by name.
The names that stick in the mind were the really bright ones such as the one who managed to shuffle the order of his witnesses so as to ensure a key witness was called the next day. He knew the defence leader had to appear in another case and reckoned the junior was one of those who wouldn't be up to asking questions. Possibly the junior in question was the previous owner of the house of one of my colleagues who kept getting debt-chasing letters addressed to him.
"you had to take a 1 hour training session from the office manager"
Somehow that reminded me of the time when you had to pass the chief technician's test to drive the departmental mini. He was a bit deaf and had obviously been used to driving cars with bigger, slower revving engines. He didn't know the engine was really labouring when he drive it and he complained about people changing up too late.
"Not a Microsoft Windows Issue"
I think it is. Prior to Microsoft putting Close there it used to be the button on the left hand end of the title bar along with the system menu so it wasn't going to be clicked in error that way. As a consequence a lot - maybe all - software released prior to that didn't have a safety dialog because they didn't need it.
I've come to the conclusion that anyone who wants to change a user interface feature just because they can should first have some interface in their daily life changed, say their car steering set to work the other way round or the brake and accelerator pedals swapped.
Good idea. I can always use my old address in Lisburn - Oh, I forgot. I don't need to. My only bit of kit which dual boots int0 Windows* won't go beyond 10 anyway.
* I keep it mostly to remind myself of what I'm missing and reassure myself I made the right decision years ago. Tomorrow I'll maybe run this month's patches and marvel at how long it takes and how many times it reboots.
But if we didn't have a minister for AI some other minister might rush to regulate it and then where would we be? Instead we have a department that can evaluate the options and in fulness of time take the appropriate decision. Probably not to do anything because then you can't be blamed for the results of what you did do.
As far as I can make out his qualifications are that his family owned the Daily Telegraph for 60 years, his father was science correspondent there and wrote a book about AI several decades ago, he himself has been interested in AI & sci-fi since about age 5, he has an MBA from Carnegie-Mellon and was a management consultant. In terms of ministers responsible for science and technology over the years that seems to make him a high-flier.
On the other hand, for defined benefits schemes HMRC instructed employers to take a contribution holiday because schemes were seriously over-funded.
Then Brownomics introduced rampant inflation to increase the liabilities and low interest rates to decrease funds' ability to pay (interest declared here) and defined benefits schemes were closed to new members because they were now grossly underfunded. Whoever made the original decision would, of course, remain oblivious to this as HMRC pensions, like those of all Civil Servants (interest also declared here) was, at least back then, essentially a Ponzi scheme underpinned by the taxpayer.
"If anyone can explain and give an example of the actual difference in handling between 'OFFICIAL' and 'OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE' please let me know."
Sir Humphrey might have expressed it as "OFFICIAL means everybody knows. OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE means only the Russians know."
It would need updating for the post-Cold War era - s/Russians/Chinese/
Windows Server ... wins because any idiot can just run a wizard from a clean install and create a HA cluster with storage and VM and other role capabilities....Linux has a long way to go on making this "admin friendly"
As opposed to something like https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/16/microsoft_windows_server_patch/ ?
On the whole I expect a system administrator to be something more than a GUI jockey.
"The secondary question is whether certain materials going into certain training sets were obtained in a way that wouldn't have been legal if a human were reading or viewing them."
Some books include words to the effect of "not to be stored in an electronic storage system" as a condition of sale. That would be a clear infringement if such a book was used without specific permission. Even if the trained model doesn't contain verbatim text the training data would be an electronically stored copy falling foul of the condition.
As to the wider issue, if the trained model is not a derivative work of all the previous works that were in the training set what's the point of training it on that data as opposed to random lists of words? Would such a trained model be simply fair use of the individual works? My understanding of fair use would be that I can embed one or several quotes from some author(s) into a work which is mostly my own. I'm not sure that embedding the entirety of another's work would count as fair use and much less so the concatenation of several such works in their entirety.
If I were to produce a work which was simply a collection of material from other sources my understanding is that I would have database rights to the collection but not necessarily to the material which went into it. I think I'd have to agree that the training of the model would add database rights for the trainer. However, unless the original material can be passed off as fair use then surely the trained model remains a derivative work of its training material. As such it must surely also include the collected rights of the authors of the training material.
If the production of the derived work is the infringing act then it seems somewhat disingenuous to offer protection against legal costs of those who use a product of it. It's misdirection as to where the potentially infringing act occurred.