gspr

4 ms·

1.
by gspr 5d ago
Someone capturing a single frame with a phone is smaller in volume, and more easily spotted and socially punished than someone recording video with glasses.
2.
by gspr 5d ago
Yes. To an extent.
3.
by gspr 5d ago
How convenient, so to hell with the privacy of everyone around you then.
4.
by gspr 5d ago
> Models don't take the content as-is, they take measurements. At some point, enough measurements constitute a copy. If I redistribute the average value of all the pixels in your photo, I'm obviously not in violation of your co
5.
by gspr 5d ago
Well if it's the second, then surely I can train my LLM using the frontier labs' models too? And have my LLM "interpret and reproduce" GTA 6? How is any of this going to work out if we just decide to throw out copyrigh
6.
by gspr 5d ago
Yes. Of course. They'd have to be rebuilt with acceptably licensed training data. And since there might not be a enough of it, the model owners are screwed. My point is that they're also screwed in the opposite scenario, because
7.
by gspr 5d ago
This is the fundamental problem with where the AI race is heading, IMHO. Broadly, there are two possible legal interpretations (to my layman's mind): * A model is derived work of its training data. This seems sane to me. Open, but copy
8.
by gspr 5d ago
Thank you for explaining this. I had the exact same misunderstanding as the parent poster, and was only corrected (and educated) by reading your comment. A hypothetical relating to the legal aspects: Since this was mostly done by an LLM, th
9.
by gspr 5d ago
This is such a bad take. It really isn't. For example, an unenforced or poorly enforced law can at any moment start to be enforced. Or powers can threaten to enforce it to compel behavior. This is vastly different from a law that doesn
10.
by gspr 6d ago
Don't be ridiculous. The fact that it's dumb to legislate mathematical falsehoods doesn't mean we can't successfully legislate things.
11.
by gspr 6d ago
"The law isn't being properly enforced" is still way better than "let's ignore the law".
12.
by gspr 6d ago
I'm so worried when the retort here is essentially "but nobody gets caught breaking the law". What have we become?
13.
by gspr 6d ago
They can just change their EULA to make the act akin to old fashioned piracy. The free software movement eschews such instruments by definition, so we're fucked.
14.
by gspr 6d ago
Are you sure about this? An alternative near future is that what you're describing is used to undermine/rightswash strong copyleft free software for use in proprietary products, while owners of proprietary software (and big movie
15.
by gspr 8d ago
Isn't the idea that the server and client should agree on a common subset? Here, the server's subset is very small, but not esoteric – so then surely it's the client that's lacking in features?
16.
by gspr 8d ago
Doesn't matter. We have ways to hold humans accountable.
17.
by gspr 16d ago
You know what they'll say in their defense. "This is an extremely complicated systems, and we apologize that a technical solution was broken in an intricate way. [Insert boilerplate about taking privacy seriously here]" These
18.
by gspr 17d ago
The fact that most people in the western world have two terrible companies to choose between in order to have normal life conveniences is outrageous. (Here in Europe we actually have no choices that operate under our laws!) We need laws
19.
by gspr 18d ago
Because only people who aren't actually sorry spend their time saying sorry instead of doing the one thing that would actually help people – provide detailed information on what the hell is going on.
20.
by gspr 20d ago
You are either very confused about timescales, or very dismissive of "just" a generation of suffering while unemployment and birthrates somewhat maybe compensate for eachother. This feels a bit like saying "global warming is
21.
by gspr 20d ago
We could mandate that any platform beyond a certain (huge) size must provide open interoperability APIs. Less radically, we can demand that any entity that takes any public money (and of course public entities themselves) avoid communicatin
22.
by gspr 20d ago
As a European, I'm glad functioning sewage systems took priority over an orbital launch capability.
23.
by gspr 20d ago
Ideally, yes. But when the baker is running around with a red hat renaming lakes, you have to start kneading if you have any sense.
24.
by gspr 21d ago
> BTW: with today’s LLMs, there’s really no excuse for badly-documented, or badly-formatted code. You can write a thousand lines of commercial-grade spaghetti, and tell the LLM to format and document it. And how do you know that the docu
25.
by gspr 21d ago
> At this point we can assume, it is better than 90% of engineers (including me). Hard disagree. We absolutely cannot assume that. You can posit it, and we can have an informed debate about it. This is what irks me the most about LLM fan
26.
by gspr 21d ago
That must be why von der Leyen renamed the Mediterranean to Lake Europe recently. Give me a break. In the present situation, the US is a lunatic asylum on fire, and the EU is a regular ol' boring place with boring problems.
27.
by gspr 21d ago
Code is precise. Human intent is anything but.
28.
by gspr 22d ago
> its not incredulity. i'm unfamiliar with what law this would be prosecuted under, so i asked. Fair enough. > i do not believe there is evidence that the agents were instructed to edit the wikis. Huh? These are machines, built b
29.
by gspr 22d ago
This kind of incredulity in the AI era hilariously reminds me of the naivete of the late 90s. All of us edgy teenagers would be like "an MP3 is like just a long number, man! You can't own numbers!" Of course we were morons. I
30.
by gspr 22d ago
I do think that regulations prevent some murders. I think lots of companies and some sociopathic individuals would be more likely to kill people, e.g. for profit, if it were legal. We need both regulations and technical solutions.

More ›