natfriedman
There is a multi-century history of chemical methods destroying scrolls by the hundreds without reading them, so we're not eager to fund that work.
The grand prize goes to the _first_ team to read 4 passages from the scrolls. But we could, for example, award something to the second team to do so. Or, we could award something to the team that reads the _most_ passages by the end of the year.
We deliberately did not allocate all of the recent sponsorships to the grand prize so we can solve for this exact challenge. So, we have about $500k in unallocated prize money, and might use a good chunk of it towards something like this. We're open to ideas, and consulting with experts from Xprize etc.
And in this recent paper: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/educelab/EduceLab-Scrolls/...
On the training question specifically, you can find OpenAI's position, as submitted to the USPTO here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OpenAI_R...
We expect that IP and AI will be an interesting policy discussion around the world in the coming years, and we're eager to participate!
The problems we spend our days solving may change. But there will always be problems for humans to solve.
In terms of the permissibility of training on public code, the jurisprudence here – broadly relied upon by the machine learning community – is that training ML models is fair use. We are certain this will be an area of discussion in the US and around the world and we're eager to participate.
Hundreds of developers are using it every day internally, and the most common reaction has been the head exploding emoji. If the technical preview goes well, we'll plan to scale this up as a paid product at some point in the future.
(Also, the person who wrote this article said that they contacted me, but I never received anything from them.)
The attack vector in the article is not the main way miners try to steal CPU from the GitHub community. It's just an interesting one that the journalist chose to write about.
It looked at first like this thread was complaining that GitHub doesn't work in something called Qutebrowser. So I downloaded Qutebrowser to try it out, and GitHub seems to work just fine.
We care quite a lot about web standards and broad browser support at GitHub, so if anyone is able to tell what the issue is, please let me know: [email protected]. Thank you!
Among other things, the policy requires that governments that want content removed from GitHub issue a lawful request to us, which we then push to a public repo: https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns
So you are able to see all of the government takedown requests that we have processed, there. You'll notice that there are only 3 directories in that repo: Russia, China, and Spain. When we do (reluctantly) take down content at the request of a government, we try to limit the takedown only to viewers in the country that made the request, rather than doing a global takedown.
The US has long imposed broad sanctions on multiple countries, including Iran. These sanctions prohibit any US company from doing business with anyone in a sanctioned country. (These sanctions can also apply to non-US companies whose activities directly or indirectly involve the US, including merely having payments that flow through US banks or payment mechanisms like Visa.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22630340
https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1250200008621608962?s...
However, we don't want this to be a competitive advantage for GitHub; developers should choose GitHub because it is better, not because it has a license from OFAC. So we have taken it upon ourselves to advocate for OFAC to allow developers in Iran and other sanctioned countries greater access to all platforms, and we will continue to do so.
This kind of change would likely require an update to OFAC’s regulations, the issuance of an updated general license, or the issuance of formal guidance from the agency. We hope that OFAC’s issuance of a license to GitHub will help pave the way for broader access to similar platforms.