Meh. Been developing professionally with C++ for 10 years at this point. I’m one of the weird people that kinda likes C++ and its pragmatism despite all its warts.

I’d like C++ better if it didn’t have inheritance. There are better solutions to model interfaces, and without inheritance people can’t write class hierarchies that are 10 levels deep with a different set of virtual functions overridden (and new virtual functions added) at each level.

And yes, that is not hypothetical. Real codebases in the real world shipping working products do that, and it’s about as nice as you can imagine.

You do have a terminology mismatch. In C++, an abstract class is a class with at least one pure virtual method.

Such classes cannot be instantiated, so they are useful only as base classes.

An interface is more of a concept than a thing.

Sure you can say that Iterable is an interface that provides the Next() and Prev() methods and you can say that Array is an Iterable because it inherits from Iterable (and then you override those methods to do the correct thing), and that’s one way to implement an interface in C++.

But you can also say that Iterable<T> is a class template that provides a Next() and Prev() methods that call the methods of the same name on the type that they wrap (CRTP aka static polymorphism).

Or you can say that an algorithm that scans a collection T forward requires the collection to have a Next() method by calling Next() on it.

And I can think of at least 2 other ways to define an interface that isn’t using abstract classes.

And even if using abstract classes, inheriting from them is definitely the least flexible way to use them to define an interface, because it doesn’t allow one to do something like mocking functionality in tests, because it’s not possible to redefine the class to be tested to inherit from the test interface implementation with mocked functionality, so one still needs something to the effect of dependency injection anyway.

So yeah, abstract class is very different from inheritance, and it’s also very different from interface, even though it relates to both.

Looks to me like the ruling is saying that the output of a model trained on copyrighted data is not copyrighted in itself.

By that logic, if I train a model on marvel movies and get something that is exactly the same as an existing movie, that output is not copyrighted.

It’s a stretch, for sure, and the judge did say that he didn’t consider the output to be similar enough to the source copyrighted material, but it’s unclear what “close enough” is.

What if my model is trained on star wars and outputs a story that is novel, with different characters with different voices. That’s not copyrighted then, despite the model being trained exclusively on copyrighted data?

Copyleft licenses are explicitly leveraging copyright laws.

So if the output of an “AI” is not subject to copyright, and the input material is also not subject to copyright, I can train a model so it outputs a byte-for-byte copy of, say, a marvel movie, and said copy is copyright free, yes?

I think it’s possible that the filesystem ran out of inodes, so even though there is space on disk, there is no space in the filesystem metadata to store new files.

Now, I don’t know off the top of my head how to check this, but I assume the answer is on the internet somewhere (am on phone and can’t help much more than this, sorry)

Regarding that part of the second edit: a very wise colleague of mine with managerial duties once told me that he expects people to give 50 to 70% every day. First, it’s unsustainable to give 100% all the time, and burnout has far worse direct and indirect consequences than simply scaling the operation up to allow more slack time. Second, when shit actually hits the fan and you need all hands on deck, there’s no more that can be given if you were already giving it 100%