freejazz

9 ms·

91.
by freejazz 2mo ago
> you need to actively litigate infringements if you want to keep it. No you don't. That being said, what is the point of a patent if not to enforce the right of exclusivity it grants as to the invention?
92.
by freejazz 2mo ago
That surely wouldn't benefit incumbent large organizations against small time inventors
93.
by freejazz 2mo ago
> Its a bit strange of a default assumption to me You come off as naive.
94.
by freejazz 2mo ago
>For software Copyright is a far better instrument. Let the one with best implementation win... That's where the cost is: Implementing, testing, shipping, maintaining. Protect that. But this is minimally protectable, and you can cop
95.
by freejazz 2mo ago
>So because you have an anecdote, I must be lying? It's called common sense. You asked what my experience is. I know you're lying because you don't pass the sniff test and you're a well known troll here. >My story
96.
by freejazz 2mo ago
>What experience do you have with the eviction process? My family has owned brownstones in new york my entire life and their experiences are quite different than yours. >Why would you accuse me of making it up? Besides the fact that y
97.
by freejazz 2mo ago
It sure is convenient when you just completely make up counterfactuals to suit yourself
98.
by freejazz 2mo ago
The entire premise of this article is a hypothetical
99.
by freejazz 2mo ago
That's a bit hyperbolic when we're all just posting on HN
100.
by freejazz 2mo ago
Everyone here is talking about LLMs, why bother calling them something else
101.
by freejazz 2mo ago
Can't call it AI like that without discrediting yourself. You mean LLMs?
102.
by freejazz 2mo ago
> This should be shown in court "Weak security" isn't a defense to theft, so probably wont. >Seems inappropriate for OpenAI to post this public-appeal, to me. They are desperate and are behaving desperately. Who actuall
103.
by freejazz 2mo ago
>Both sides should learn to remain silent and work the case through legal channels. Why? Apple surely doesn't want to and why should they?
104.
by freejazz 3mo ago
Come on, what would they need to learn that wasn't already "trained" by the LLMs ingestion of his works in the first instance??
105.
by freejazz 3mo ago
This but instead it's people insisting that AI will replace my job (been three months out for at least 3 years now) because they know it involves words.
106.
by freejazz 3mo ago
I don't know which company the OP belongs to in particular, but searching online reveals plenty of similar cos.
107.
by freejazz 3mo ago
Why would you need to shred a book from the 1800s when it is in the public domain? Something is fishy here.
108.
by freejazz 3mo ago
Geez - their LLMs couldn't figure it out?
109.
by freejazz 3mo ago
You've replied to several of my posts in this thread, no need to play a fool
110.
by freejazz 3mo ago
I guess you'd prefer to enjoy significantly fewer works mainly consisting of stories told through oral tradition. Some of us like movies!
111.
by freejazz 3mo ago
No one is suing over what you wrote on Geocities in 1995...
112.
by freejazz 3mo ago
The idea that art was made at all contradicts a premise offered by no one
113.
by freejazz 3mo ago
>The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that. Your entire thesis is false on its face. One does not need a big publisher to get published or make there work available. You've also offered no other alternative wherein th
114.
by freejazz 3mo ago
That's a big leap
115.
by freejazz 3mo ago
>If money is the only incentive, then it's not a product of artistic work. This is just bullshit and no one said it's the only incentive. > There are a lot of alternative ways to fulfill that mandate that don't include
116.
by freejazz 3mo ago
And?
117.
by freejazz 3mo ago
>There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Yeah, it's called "copyright."
118.
by freejazz 3mo ago
Sorry, I'm thinking of Kadrey , where the court rejected Anthropic's "training" argument and provided an explanation as to how author litigants should demonstrate market harm in order to succeed on a fair use analysis,
119.
by freejazz 3mo ago
> if you can't persuade the machine to spit substantially the same text back out verbatim That's exactly what they've done in a number of the lawsuits, so I'm not sure why you think that hasn't occurred.
120.
by freejazz 3mo ago
Well, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.

More ›