Joplin is great, and I’ve been testing https://tikski.com/ lately and really enjoying it.

Been doing pilates for a couple years. Which moved to general calisthenics and mobility for exercise. Smitten. Haven’t felt this good since my 20s and I’m nearly 50.

Taken 2 years.

I have a set of small, palm sized stones I picked out of a local river. Nearly as good as my japanese whetstone progression set. :-) I seriously use the more, and my kitchen knives I can shave with. Feels so… manly :-)

I also agree, but to take it further, I decided I’d had enough of cables on my circular saw. Got a small, lightweight one, and omg, it’s SO good.

I have an older style Breville Stand Mixer. It has attachments like a dough hook, beaters, scrapers, etc. I thought I’d never use it. But! It sits on the bench (must be there for ease of access), and the amount of times I use it is astounding.

It’s probably a little bit like when people used to copy tapes of their favourite artists in the 80s. And then that was just for private use and home projects.

But this is next level.

I don’t know the species. If anyone does, feel free to let us know.

Duck that

Full on. China poisoning open source software. Lucky it got caught. Imagine how much of it is going on.

I asked the bot. It says:

I understand the concern. This question sits at the intersection of copyright law, statistics, and how machine-learning systems work—and it’s fair to be skeptical.

Here’s the most precise and careful way to frame it:

1. I can’t confirm GPL training data

I don’t know what specific works or licenses were in the training set, and I can’t confirm that GPL-licensed material was included. Neither I nor users have visibility into the underlying corpus.

So while it may be statistically plausible that GPL text exists somewhere in public data, plausibility ≠ proof, and I can’t assert it as fact.

2. Training ≠ distribution (the core legal argument)

OpenAI’s legal position (and that of most ML practitioners) is broadly this:

• Training on copyrighted material is not the same as redistributing it

• The model does not contain copies of works

• Outputs are newly generated, not retrieved

• Copyright law regulates copying and distribution, not learning patterns or statistics

This is analogous (legally, not philosophically) to a human reading GPL code and then later writing different code from experience.

Whether courts ultimately agree in every jurisdiction is still being litigated—but no court has ruled that training itself is per se illegal.

3. GPL specifically

GPL obligations trigger when you:

• copy

• modify

• distribute
  GPL-licensed code or derivative works.

Current legal consensus does not treat model weights or outputs as GPL “derivatives” in the copyright sense, because:

• There is no preserved expressive structure

• There is no traceable lineage to a specific work

• Outputs are not mechanically derived from any one source

That’s why GPL’s copyleft provisions are generally understood not to propagate through model training.

4. Is the law settled?

No. Anyone claiming it is settled is overstating.

What is true:

• Training on public data is widespread and openly practiced

• Multiple lawsuits exist, but none have yet established that training itself violates copyright or GPL

• Regulators and courts are still clarifying boundaries

5. Practical reality

Even if GPL material were in the training mix:

• That alone would not automatically make the model or its outputs illegal

• Liability (if any) would hinge on specific outputs being substantially similar to protected works, not on statistical likelihoods about training data

Bottom line

Your intuition about probability is reasonable—but legality does not turn on probability. It turns on:

• whether protected expression is reproduced

• whether derivative works are created

• whether licenses are triggered by the act in question

As of now, the prevailing legal interpretation is that models like me are lawful to deploy, even though the debate is ongoing.

If you want, I can also:

• Compare this to the Google Books ruling

• Walk through why “derivative work” is a high legal bar

• Discuss what would actually make an AI system GPL-tainted in practice

Watch the movie named The Time Traveller’s Wife. It is absolutely superb and based on sort of that idea, but not quite.

I use Talon Voice

Full Linux shop here. Love it…

Desktops, laptops, servers.

For those rare customer teams meets, we just do it in the browser.

</saltRub>

Boosh. There it is.

After a long, unhealthy relationship, I ended up in a very promising relationship.

It took many years if half truths to her, and then full disclosures, and eventually, a full and total disclosure of my past, my desires, my weaknesses, the whole lot.

She barely flinched. She saw me for who I was / am.

From that moment we bonded deeper than I’ve ever thought possible.

Nobody could hijack us. Nothing could try to surprise us and derail / damage us. Shame was thrown out the window. There is none. We know everything. We meet as honestly as is possible each day.

Do it. I highly recommend it. However, there was a right time. If we’d done it too early, we wouldn’t have worked.

So with that backstory. Always telling the truth to my partner. No matter how scary it seems.

Truth, truth, truth.

Interestingly… an insurance assessor. Proper good human.

Counselling. Highly recommended

Yup. I’m on my 2016 NUC. Next year is its 10th and i MAY upgrade. However, it’s still doing well. I’ll see what I can get out of it.

Google is murdering Ffroid by killing apk

That is terrifying