"The clean-room reimplementation test" isn't a legal standard, it's a particular strategy used by would-be defendants to clearly meet the standard of "is the new work free of copyrightable expression from the original work".
Claude must be trained on chardet already, it worked on chardet's code to optimize or rewrite it to be much better. This is the textbook definition of derivative works.
There is fewer then 2% of code a copy of chardet. When the developer of chardet had done it without AI, whats then? He is trained on the same code too.
just installed ghostty, looks cool. but my honest question is how it is significantly better than iterm2 to justify such a switch? I am aware of the fact that it is faster, uses less memory, various configurations is more straight forward. but is that all?
I have the feeling that I must be missing something big here.
I’ve been using iTerm2 for years. I’ve tried ghostty a few times and quickly went back to iterm each time for various reasons I can’t immediately recall. There is nothing I can think of lacking from iterm.
That said; if I was working more on Linux or Windows where iterm doesn’t exist it looks like ghostty would be a good option.
Same. As far as I can tell, Ghostty is still in active development and unfinished. For regular use iTerm 2 is a complete product that can be relied upon.
> The other 50% know that it's clearly independent and are tired of the whole act by the Chinese government.
Chinese living in a foreign country, or Chinese willing to discuss such issues with you in China is a highly biased sample set. That is high school math you suppose to learn at the age of 17.
Cultural Revolution is all about totally politicalised society, extremely polarised, regular people fight against each other based on ideologies. Isn't that the current west?
> because literally every other person in her extended family was in prison or work camp
translate for you - her family was heavily involved in politics, it is just unlucky that her family was not on the winning side, so she hates whatever happened.
posting from Shanghai, going back to the 3rd world west in a few days.
translate for you - her family was heavily involved in politics, it is just unlucky that her family was not on the winning side, so she hates whatever happened.
This is false. When you have no idea at all what you're talking about, you should just be quiet.
The problems were that (in order of increasing specificity)
(a) We're talking about Marxism here, and Marxism is all about class warfare. Before the Communists her family had been part of the "landlord" class, and thus were enemies of the people by definition.
(b) One uncle was tricked by the anti-rightist movement. If you're not aware of this, it was earlier in Mao's reign. Mao said, essentially, "we know we haven't gotten everything perfect, so tell us what we could do better". Wife's uncle was stupid enough to believe him, the result of which was a 20-year prison sentence, and also his wife being forced to divorce him, and further tainting the family. (Something on the order of 500K to 2M people were persecuted like this.)
(c) Any outside influences were suspect at best, and often de facto proof of espionage. She had an uncle who was a US citizen. And her father had traveled extensively internationally, as a sea captain (never mind the fact it was the PRC government, as the sole employer in China, who put him onto those ships).
(d) Wife's family side had been in theater. One aunt had been in a theater troupe with Jiang Qing (Mao's wife), and knew at least some of her, ummm, lower class history. Putting her, and the rest of the family, in prison kept them shut up and warned them not to talk any further. (This may sound far-fetched, but consider what the Gang of Four was up to during the Cultural Revolution, and that she was a member.)
posting from Shanghai, going back to the 3rd world west in a few days.
You might do well to read, e.g., Shanghai Tears by Pu Gui Yuan to better understand what was happening back in those days. Then again, I don't imagine you can just go buy a copy of it over there.
> Does a unilateral guarantee not to build autonomous killbots actually make anyone safer if China makes no such promise, or does that perversely put us at more risk?
China considers all lethal autonomous weapons "unacceptable", calling all countries to ban it. Countries like the US and India refuse to back such proposals. See China's official stands on this matter below.
I totally understand that you got brainwashed by the media, but hey you appearantly have internet access, why can't you just do a little bit research of your own before posting nonsense using imagination as your source of information?
China does not consider all lethal autonomous weapons system "unacceptable" even for use, let alone to develop, and the document you linked explains this very clearly. Here's what the document actually says, formatted slightly for clarity:
```
Basic characteristics of Unacceptable Autonomous Weapons Systems should include but not limited to the following:
- Firstly, lethality, meaning sufficient lethal payload (charge) and means.
- Secondly, autonomy, meaning absence of human intervention and control during the entire process of executing a task.
- Thirdly, impossibility for termination, meaning that once started, there is no way to terminate the operation.
- Fourthly, indiscriminate killing, meaning that the device will execute the mission of killing and maiming regardless of conditions, scenarios and targets.
- Fifthly, evolution, meaning that through interaction with the environment, the device can learn autonomously, expand its functions and capabilities in a degree exceeding human expectations.
Autonomous weapons systems with all of the five characteristics clearly have anti-human characteristics and significant humanitarian risks, and the international community could consider following the example of the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons and work to reach a legal instrument to prohibit such weapons systems.
```
Charitably, you might say that China is worried about a nightmare scenario. Less charitably, you might say that the definition of an unacceptable weapon system is so tight that it does not describe anything that anyone would ever build, or would want to build. This posture would allow China to adopt the international posture of seeming to oppose autonomous weapons without actually de facto constraining themselves at all.
This, by contrast, is what China considers acceptable:
```
Acceptable Autonomous Weapons Systems could have a high degree of autonomy, but are always under human control. It means they can be used in a secure, credible, reliable and manageable manner, can be suspended by human beings at any time and comply with basic principles of international humanitarian law in military operations, such as distinction, proportionality and precaution.
```
So as long as the system has a killswitch (something that afaik absolutely no one is proposing to dispense with?), it's Acceptable.
Chinese models are developed by Chinese corporate. they are free and open weight because they are the underdog atm. they are not here for fun, they are here to compete.
The competition is good though, it will push down the prices for all of us. At some point being behind 5% won’t have much practical difference. Most people won’t even notice it.
I will gladly switch to that one if their CEO is less of sociopath than Altman and god forbid Amodei. In fact I use some of the new Chinese models at home and compared to Opus 4.6 AGI, the difference is getting less. Codex 5.3 xhigh is already better than opus anyway.
reply