I only read the abstract but I got the impression that their solution to this is they have both. They translate all the data as if it was code and if it gets called into they use the translation where if it gets read as memory they use the original.

Edit I found this in the paper

> Elevator sidesteps the code-versus-data determination altogether through an application of superset disassembly [6]: we simultaneously interpret every executable byte offset in the original binary as (i) data and (ii) the start of a potential instruction sequence beginning at that offset, and we build the superset control flow graph from every one of the resulting candidate decodes. Every potential target of indirect jumps, callbacks, or other runtime dispatch mechanisms that cannot be statically analyzed therefore has a corresponding landing point in the rewritten binary. These targets are resolved at runtime through a lookup table from original instruction addresses to translated code addresses that we embed in the final binary.

Not true, they were down because they still use bluesky's relay

Trade secrets once made public don't have any legal protection and I haven't signed any contract with anthropic

Implying that programming is not an actual job that takes years of training and experience

To be clear I don't think the AI can do either job

The champion of compatibility lives on

Yes but the lords are not satisfied with this. They demand the 10x productivity they sold to investors. If you do it this way you will not produce 10x the code.

I'm having trouble understanding to what extent the machine learning used for interfacing with the neurons is doing the learning

In reality it's not that hard for them to work around the constitution e.g. by buying data from private companies

you're right, and those companies are traitors. But even then, I'm pretty sure they can't buy data enmasse to target a large number of americans without reason, but they could get around it by saying it's "just analysis of data", but they can only get around it that way because the judges are bought and paid for. When it suits them they interpret the constitution in the spirit it was written, when it doesn't according to the specific letters. The wording is clear on this:

"""

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"""

It doesn't matter how the right of the people to be secure against searches and seizures is implemented. If the government manages to cause that, they're in violation. For other amendments it is written with wording like "congress shall not" indicating the restriction is on the government, preventing it from doing specific things. In this case, any violation of search and seizure is unlawful.

Your cookie banner is very inconvenient and made me leave your website and not read the article

It would be nice to give them some kind of attribution in the readme or something since you know which projects you referenced

Exactly. If you have the decency to ask, you probably have the capacity to be courteous beyond the minimum required by law.

I'm more interested in the general question rather than the specifics of this situation, which I'm sure is now incredibly common. I know it looked at those implementations because I asked it to, and therefore I will credit those projects when I release this library. In general though, people do not know what other material the agents looked at in order to derive their results, therefore they can't give credit, or even be sure that they are technically complying with the relevant licenses.