You are very unlikely to write assembly that is more optimized than what a modern compiler could produce for anything longer than a trivial program. I don’t know if it made sense at the time of the original RCT, but OpenRCT would definitely not benefit from being written in assembly.
- 0 Posts
- 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
4·6 months agoImagine you were asked to start speaking a new language, eg Chinese. Your brain happens to work quite differently to the rest of us. You have immense capabilities for memorization and computation but not much else. You can’t really learn Chinese with this kind of mind, but you have an idea that plays right into your strengths. You will listen to millions of conversations by real Chinese speakers and mimic their patterns. You make notes like “when one person says A, the most common response by the other person is B”, or “most often after someone says X, they follow it up with Y”. So you go into conversations with Chinese speakers and just perform these patterns. It’s all just sounds to you. You don’t recognize words and you can’t even tell from context what’s happening. If you do that well enough you are technically speaking Chinese but you will never have any intent or understanding behind what you say. That’s basically LLMs.
2·8 months agoThe source code in this torrent is a clone of the git repo. I don’t know if there are missing branches but it should have the entirety of the master branch history at least.
I have my own backup of the git repo and I downloaded this to compare and make sure it’s not some modified (potentially malicious) copy. The most recent commit on my copy of master was
dc94882c9062ab88d3d5de35dcb8731111baaea2(4 commits behind OP’s copy). I can verify:- that the history up to that commit is identical in both copies
- after that commit, OP’s copy only has changes to translation files which are functionally insignificant
So this does look to be a legitimate copy of the source code as it appeared on github!
Clarifications:
- This was just a random check, I do not have any reason to be suspicious of OP personally
- I did not check branches other than
master(yet?) - I did not (and cannot) check the validity of anything beyond the git repo
- You don’t have a reason to trust me more than you trust OP… It would be nice if more people independently checked and verified against their own copies.
I will be seeding this for the foreseeable future.
Aha I see what you’re saying. It’s possible that dr CD considered the second part to be crucial, but it doesn’t seem that people who listened to his message felt the same way, myself included. I probably speak for a lot of people when I say we hadn’t realized just how much these platforms are “subsidized” and how much damage that does to the entire market. So that part ended up being associated in our minds with the term enshittification.
“Enshitification” does not mean “I don’t like it”. It is specifically about platforms that start out looking too good to be true and turn to shit when the user base is locked in. The term is generally used for cases where the decline in quality was pre-planned and not due to external factors. Using the same term each time is, in my opinion, an appropriate way to point out just how common this pattern is.
If you have a large enough bank roll and continuously double your bet after a loss, you can never lose without a table limit.
Unless your bank roll is infinite, you always lose in the average case. My math was just an example to show the point with concrete numbers.
In truth it is trivial to prove that there is no winning strategy in roulette. If a strategy is just a series of bets, then the expected value is the sum of the expected value of the bets. Every bet in roulette has a negative expected value. Therefore, every strategy has a negative expected value as well. I’m not saying anything ground-breaking, you can read a better write-up of this idea in the wikipedia article.
If you don’t think that’s true, you are welcome to show your math which proves a positive expected value. Otherwise, saying I’m “completely wrong” means nothing.
So help me out here, what am I missing?
You’re forgetting that not all outcomes are equal. You’re just comparing the probability of winning vs the probability of losing. But when you lose you lose much bigger. If you calculate the expected outcome you will find that it is negative by design. Intuitively, that means that if you do this strategy, the one time you will lose will cost you more than the money you made all the other times where you won.
I’ll give you a short example so that we can calculate the probabilities relatively easily. We make the following assumptions:
- You have $13, which means you can only make 3 bets: $1, $3, $9
- The roulette has a single 0. This is the best case scenario. So there are 37 numbers and only 18 of them are red This gives red a 18/37 to win. The zero is why the math always works out in the casino’s favor
- You will play until you win once or until you lose all your money.
So how do we calculate the expected outcome? These outcomes are mutually exclusive, so if we can define the (expected gain * probability) of each one, we can sum them together. So let’s see what the outcomes are:
- You win on the first bet. Gain: $1. Probability: 18/37.
- You win on the second bet. Gain: $2. Probability: 19/37 * 18/37 (lose once, then win once).
- You win on the third bet. Gain: $4. Probability: (19/37) ^ 2 * 18/37 (lose twice, then win once).
- You lose all three bets. Gain: -$13. Probability: (19/37) ^ 3 (lose three times).
So the expected outcome for you is:
$1 * (18/37) + 2 * (19/37 * 18/37) + … = -$0.1328…
So you lose a bit more than $0.13 on average. Notice how the probabilities of winning $1 or $2 are much higher than the probability of losing $13, but the amount you lose is much bigger.
Others have mentioned betting limits as a reason you can’t do this. That’s wrong. There is no winning strategy. The casino always wins given enough bets. Betting limits just keep the short-term losses under control, making the business more predictable.
11·11 months agoThen the site is wrong to tell you that you can use the images in any way you want.
That’s what I’m saying.
intentionally violate copyright
Why is it intentional? Some characters come up even in very generic prompts. I’ve been toying around with it and I’m finding it hard to come up with prompts containing “superhero” that don’t include superman in the outputs. Even asking explicitly for original characters doesn’t work.
For the most part it hasn’t happened.
And how do you measure that? You have a way for me to check if my prompt for “Queer guy standing on top of a mountain gazing solemnly into the distance” is strikingly similar to some unknown person’s deviantart uploads, just like my prompt containing “original superhero” was to superman?
The status quo…
Irrelevant to the discussion. We’re talking about copyright law here, ie about what rights a creator has on their original work, not whether they decide to exercise them in regards to fan art.
until they get big enough
Right, so now that multi-billion dollar companies are taking in the work of everyone under the sun to build services threatening to replace many jobs, are they “big enough” for you? Am I allowed to discuss it now?
This is an argument-by-comparion.
It’s not an argument by comparison (or it is a terrible one) because you compared it to something that differs (or you avoided mentioning) all the crucial parts of the issue. The discussion around AI exists specifically because of how the data to train them is sourced, because of the specific mechanisms they implement to produce their output, and because of demonstrated cases of producing output that is very clearly a copy of copyrighted work. By leaving the crucial aspects unspecified, your are trying to paint my argument as being that we should ban every device of any nature that could produce output that might under any circumstances happen to infringe on someone’s copyright, which is much easier for you to argue against without having to touch on any of the real talking points. This is why this is a strawman argument.
You don’t own a copyright on a pattern
Wrong. In the context of training AI, I’m taking about any observable pattern in the input data, which does include some forms of patterns that are copyright-able, eg the general likeness of a character rather than a specific drawing of them.
your idea of how copyright should work here is regressive, harmful
My ideas on copyright are very progressive actually. But we’re not discussing my ideas, we’re discussing existing copyright law and whether the “transformation” argument used by AI companies is bullshit. We’re discussing if it’s giving them a huge and unearned break from the copyright system that abuses the rest of us for their benefit.
a description specific enough to produce Micky mouse from a machine that’s never seen it.
Right, but then you would have to very strictly define Micky Mouse in your prompt. You would be the one providing this information, instead of it being part of the model. That would clearly not be an infringement on the model’s part!
But then you would have to also solve the copyright infringement of Superman, Obi-Wan, Pikachu, some random person’s deviantart image depicting “Queer guy standing on top of a mountain gazing solemnly into the distance”, … . In the end, the only model that can claim without reasonable objection to have no tendency to illegally copy other peoples’ works is a model that is trained only on data with explicit permission.
If AI companies were predominantly advertising themselves as “we make your pictures of Micky mouse” you’d have a valid point.
Doesn’t matter what it’s advertised as. That picture is, you agree, unusable. But the site I linked to above is selling this service and it’s telling me I can use the images in any way I want. I’m not stupid enough to use Mickey Mouse commercially, but what happens when the output is extremely similar to a character I’ve never heard of? I’m going to use it assuming it is an AI-generated character, and the creator is very unlikely to find out unless my work ends up being very famous. The end result is that the copyright of everything not widely recognizable is practically meaningless if we accept this practice.
But at this point you’re basically arguing that it should be impossible to sell a magical machine that can draw anything you ask from it because it could be asked to draw copyright images.
Straw man. This is not a magical device that can “draw anything”, and it doesn’t just happen to be able to draw copyrighted images as a side-effect of being able to create every imaginable thing, as you try to make it sound. This is a mundane device whose sole function is to try to copy patterns from its input set, which unfortunately is pirated. If you want to prove me wrong, make your own model without a single image of Micky Mouse or a tag with his name, then try to get it to draw him like I did before. You will fail because this machine’s ability to draw him is dependent on being trained on images of him.
There are many ways this could be done ethically, like:
- build it on open datasets, or on datasets you own, instead of pirating
- don’t commercialize it
- allow non-commercial uses, like research or just messing around (which would be a real transformative use)
Seems like a petty technicality to me.
The “transformation” is the petty technicality in my opinion. Would it be transformative if I sold you a database of base64 encoded images? What about if they were encrypted?
Hell, you can hire me to paint based on prompts you give me. That’s the exact same service an AI provides, no? I’m going to study copyrighted materials to get better at my service. Surely if pictures -> AI model is transformative, then pictures -> knowledge in my brain is transformative as well. So you give me the prompt “Mickey Mouse” and I draw this. This is “custom art”. You think you can use that commercially? And if you realize that you can’t, why do you think I should be able to legally sell you this service?
Pictures and things that draw pictures aren’t the same thing.
And that’s completely irrelevant because “things that draw pictures” is not the work being sold. You’re buying pictures.
Except it’s not really transformative because the end product is not the model itself. The product is a service that writes code or draws pictures. It is literally the exact same as the input and it is intended specifically to avoid having to buy the inputs.
You can argue that “open source” can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about “open source”. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links don’t support your argument.
A bit further down in the Wikipedia page is this:
Main article: Open-source software
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
And if you go to the main article, it is apparent that the OSI definition is treated as the de fact definition of open source. I’m not going to quote everything, but here are examples of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_versus_source-availableAnd from Red Hat, literally the first sentence
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
…
And if we follow that link:
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about cost—both kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesn’t mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
prageru is a known disinformation platform. That link is worthless.
The ongoing war in Gaza, is HAMAS against Israel.
And what about the Palestinian lands that are occupied and the Palestinians that were uprooted from there? What about the Palestinians that have been killed by Israel? The recent events might have been HAMAS, but historically this is a Palestine-Israel conflict. If you can’t be bothered to learn and understand the context, why comment at all?
Let’s remove the context of AI altogether.
Yeah sure if you do that then you can say anything. But the context is crucial. Imagine that you could prove in court that I went down to the public library with a list that read “Books I want to read for the express purpose of mimicking, and that I get nothing else out of”, and on that list was your book. Imagine you had me on tape saying that for me writing is not a creative expression of myself, but rather I am always trying to find the word that the authors I have studied would use. Now that’s getting closer to the context of AI. I don’t know why you think you would need me to sell verbatim copies of your book to have a good case against me. Just a few passages should suffice given my shady and well-documented intentions.
Well that’s basically what LLMs look like to me.
But what an LLM does meets your listed definition of transformative as well
No it doesn’t. Sometimes the output is used in completely different ways but sometimes it is a direct substitute. The most obvious example is when it is writing code that the user intends to incorporate into their work. The output is not transformative by this definition as it serves the same purpose as the original works and adds no new value, except stripping away the copyright of course.
everything it outputs is completely original
[citation needed]
that you can’t use to reconstitute the original work
Who cares? That has never been the basis for copyright infringement. For example, as far as I know I can’t make and sell a doll that looks like Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie. It should be considered transformative work. A doll has nothing to do with the cartoon. It provides a completely different sort of value. It is not even close to being a direct copy or able to reconstitute the original. And yet, as far as I know I am not allowed to do it, and even if I am, I won’t risk going to court against Disney to find out. The fear alone has made sure that we mere mortals cannot copy and transform even the smallest parts of copyrighted works owned by big companies.
I would find it hard to believe that if there is a Supreme Court ruling which finds digitalizing copyrighted material in a database is fair use and not derivative work
Which case are you citing? Context matters. LLMs aren’t just a database. They are also a frontend to extract the data from these databases, that is being heavily marketed and sold to people who might otherwise have bought the original works instead.
The lossy compression is also irrelevant, otherwise literally every pirated movie/series release would be legal. How lossy is it even? How would you measure it? I’ve seen github copilot spit out verbatim copies of code. I’m pretty sure that if I ask ChatGPT to recite me a very well known poem it will also be a verbatim copy. So there are at least some works that are included completely losslessly. Which ones? No one knows and that’s a big problem.
“Transformative” in this context does not mean simply not identical to the source material. It has to serve a different purpose and to provide additional value that cannot be derived from the original.
The summary that they talk about in the article is a bad example for a lawsuit because it is indeed transformative. A summary provides a different sort of value than the original work. However if the same LLM writes a book based on the books used as training data, then it is definitely not an open and shut case whether this is transformative.
Not a lawyer so I can’t be sure. To my understanding a summary of a work is not a violation of copyright because the summary is transformative (serves a completely different purpose to the original work). But you probably can’t copy someone else’s summary, because now you are making a derivative that serves the same purpose as the original.
So here are the issues with LLMs in this regard:
- LLMs have been shown to produce verbatim or almost-verbatim copies of their training data
- LLMs can’t figure out where their output came from so they can’t tell their user whether the output closely matches any existing work, and if it does what license it is distributed under
- You can argue that by its nature, an LLM is only ever producing derivative works of its training data, even if they are not the verbatim or almost-verbatim copies I already mentioned
Yes, it can. But why is this exclusive to assembly? What are you planning to do with your memory use in assembly that is not achievable in C++ or other languages? Memory optimizations are largely about data structures and access patterns. This is available to you in C++.
Also, if you don’t want 90% of the craziness of C++ then why not just code in C++ without 90% of the craziness? As far as I know what’s what a lot of performance-critical projects do. They operate with a feature whitelist/blacklist. Don’t tell me you have the discipline to work entirely in assembly and the knowledge to beat the compiler at the low level stuff that is not available to you in C++ but you can’t manage avoiding the costly abstractions.
I think it speaks volumes how rarely you hear about programs being programmed in assembly. It’s always this one game and never any meaningful way to prove that it would gain performance by not being written in C++ when using a modern compiler.