Code is one thing, but what about writing? There is no 100% foolproof way to identify content written by LLMs, and human writing routinely gets incorrectly flagged as such. If I write a book, and a checker says that it's written by LLM, is it automatically in the public domain?
My understanding is that only human creativity can be copyrighted. So if you sketched out the plot and got the LLM to write all the words, then only the plot is copyrightable. So someone else can copy all the words, as long as they don't copy your plot.
However, as you point out, someone has to determine which bits the LLM created and which bits you created. If you wrote the whole book, and a tool incorrectly flags your writing as LLM writing, and then someone copies chunks of your book because they believed the tool and assumed they could (and assuming you filed a DMCA claim and they denied it using the tool's output as proof) then there's going to have to be a court case.
I suspect there's going to be a few court cases about this.
But the plot can't be copyrightable, as the copyright applies only to a tangible representation of an idea (e.g. written text), and not to an idea itself.
I wouldn't say more disturbing, really. But more "enlightening".
A shit umbrella is great to have if the alternative is a shit funnel. But how are you gonna appreciate the shit umbrella if it's pitch black, blocks everything at all times?
You're not gonna appreciate it. In fact, you might think some of the things your manager does are the "bad things", when in fact, it's just the umbrella bowing under all the shitload.
If the umbrella is (somewhat) transparent, you, as the manager, gain some legitimacy through transparency. You're no longer the manager that "sits around on his ass all day doing nothing". You're actually doing something for the team and they can "see" it, even though it doesn't affect them.
> it seems particularly the German-speaking countries are borderline obsessed with a) titles
There is nothing borderline about that - the German cultural space (including very much the countries of former Habsburg Empire) is still completely obsessed with titles and formal positions despite many of them losing any practical importance in modern times.
Yep. And those that did implement the standard did so for a different set of consumers with different needs.
I'm also willing to make an appeal to authority here (or at least competitive markets). If Anthropic was able to get Google and others on board with this thing, it probably does have merit beyond what else is available.
People tend to underestimate how cold it gets in the interior of countries generally seen as the "sunny Mediterranean" - from Croatia, Montenegro, Albania and even Greece.
And Spain. Bring these "sunny Spain lovers" to North/Inner Spain in Winter. Watch them running away as if it were some kind of weird disease.
Also, spotting the typical tourist climbing the Picos de Europa range in sandals is not weird. What's weird if he/she makes it alive... or without frozen fingers or toes.
Yes, I've been searching for a long time for a good solution to allow non-coding people to visually design JSON Schemas. The closest thing I found is the schema editor in the amazing Stoplight service, but that is sadly not open source.
Heck, I'm a coder and I get lost when just dealing with the raw JSON Schema.
It's not a problem for a dozen properties, but we have several hundreds in our larger schemas, even accounting for them being fairly normalized w.r.t. types. And five or more levels of nesting turns into an effective ten plus levels in the schema.
One underutilised feature of JSON Schema is referencing external schemas and reusing them in multiple places, rather than copying them over and over again. The main hurdle to a better use of this feature is the lack of a good standard for schema repositories; I've been working on addressing this, but it's difficult to find the time. :/
> One underutilised feature of JSON Schema is referencing external schemas and reusing them in multiple places
Yeah, though while it does make each subschema somewhat more readable and contained, you still don't get a good overview. If you're reading the spec for a given object, do you don't easily see where it's being used in the schema.
For now I've just supplied the JSON Schema as a self-contained thing, and deferred other parties to the XSD to get an overview. The self-contained makes it trivial to load into a validator and such.
So while it helps for knowing what to fill into that exact object, it doesn't help for getting a feel for the overall schema. This is where the visual view of tools such as XMLSpy really helps.
> lack of a good standard for schema repositories
Interesting, do you have something public to show? For our large ones I feel they'd be entirely custom anyway, but perhaps I can see standard sub-schemas useful for other tasks. Would be interesting to have a look.
True, when focusing only on the schemas as code. But good tooling could provide links and similar.
> do you have something public to show
Just a very early PoC [0]. I'm slowly working my way through a very long to-do list of improvements, but I'm lacking time and resources to do it more efficiently.
reply