No, compression formats are not Turing-complete. You control the code interpreting the compressed stream and allocating the memory, writing the output, etc. based on what it sees there and can simply choose to return an error after writing N bytes.
At least that sounds like it would be a more interesting story than the one where the person who quit a year ago didn't document all the places they manually installed the 2-year certificate.
I think the idea is that if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention, then either the idea is obvious or there was prior art in the training set; either way the patent is invalid.
> ...if an LLM trained prior to the patent date can reproduce the invention...
Would we even be able to tell if the machine reproduced the invention covered by the claims in the patent?
I (regrettably) have my name on some US software patents. I've read the patents, have intimate knowledge of the software they claim to cover, and see nearly zero relation between the patent and the covered software. If I set a skilled programmer to the task of reproducing the software components that are supposed to be covered by the patents, I guarantee that they'd fail, and fail hard.
Back before I knew about the whole "treble damage thing" (and just how terrible many-to-most software patents are) I read many software patents. I found them to offer no hints to the programmer seeking to reproduce the covered software component or system.
Indeed, but a constructive reduction to practice means that the inventor still has to describe how it can be done. And if it's impossible, then it's not a reduction to practice, just an invalid patent.
I had similar thoughts before. It's worth thinking about what attorneys will do in response to rejections based on LLMs reproducing ideas. I'm a former patent examiner, and attorneys frequently argue that the examiners showed "hindsight bias" when rejecting claims. The LLM needs to produce the idea without being led too much towards it.
Something like clean-room reverse engineering could be applied. First ask a LLM to describe the problem in a way that avoids disclosing the solution, then ask an independent LLM how that problem could be solved. If LLMs can reliably produce the idea in response to the problem description, that is, after running a LLM 100 times over half show the idea (the fraction here is made up for illustration), the idea's obvious.
They're full time developers exclusively for git? How long have they been doing this? What is the set of their contributions to date? Of the total set of developers how many of them want this?
Is their set of desires anything more than "lets use Rust?" Is there a specific set of new functionality that would depend on it? New use cases that could be served with it? Is there even a long term plan for "new new C code" at some date?
I sense disaster fomented by poorly articulated goals.
> Also, there's already a separate from-scratch re-implementation of git in Rust (gitoxide).
Sounds perfect. Then each project can maintain the focus on their core language and not potentially take several steps backwards by hacking two incompatible pieces together with no roadmap.
The people who are trying to commercialize the product? It's interesting that with all this money all they do is send "their developers" into the mailing list to push the product and everyone else in their own direction.
You asked who is pushing this. The answer is people who are paid full time to work on Git. These are Git developers. Their names are mentioned in the article, it is not hard to look up what these people have done, what they are doing now, and who they work for.
What are you trying to get at? It's not a conspiracy theory, it's people who just want to be able to be more effective at getting things done.
Obviously. But I was responding to "what is sinister about a GET request". To put it a slightly different way, it does not matter so much whether the request is a read or a write. For example DNS amplfication attacks work by asking a DNS server (read) for a much larger record than the request packet requires, and faking the request IP to match the victim. That's not even a connection the victim initiated, but that packet still travels along the network path. In fact, if it crashes a switch or something along the way, that's just as good from the point of view of the attacker, maybe even better as it will have more impact.
I am absolutely not a fan of all these "are you human?" checks at all, doubly so when ad-blockers trigger them. I think there are very legitimate reasons for wanting to access certain sites without being tracked - anything related to health is an example.
Maybe I should have made a more substantive comment, but I don't believe this is as simple a problem as reducing it to request types.
sometimes you just must have a new full backup every N days/weeks. it a more "smooth" way to deal with potential corruption in repo that might be undetected (without dealing with all suggested workarounds) and in some cases compliance/certification requires it
It is the Rust compiler, the article describes how the (Rust) compiler is first compiled without the Rust code in it and then used to bootstrap the final version which does have the Rust code in it
reply