olalonde

5 ms·

61.
Why Doctors Hate the Internet (2000)(wired.com)
3 points by olalonde 2mo ago|0 comments
62.
by olalonde 2mo ago
Prices will also go down dramatically. When you eliminate human labour completely, you are essentially stuck with the problem of efficiently allocating raw materials. And raw materials are abundant compared to what human labour can currentl
63.
by olalonde 2mo ago
Weird thing to get hung up on.
64.
How a Texas student blew the whistle on a rogue AI hacking attempt(reuters.com)
211 points by olalonde 2mo ago|128 comments
65.
by olalonde 2mo ago
In theory, a buyer could always execute that strategy after the sale, so it's essentially "priced in". By keeping the auction exclusive, the seller also keeps the possibility that the data is worth more to someone as an exclu
66.
by olalonde 2mo ago
As long as digital or physical copies exist, you can. Regardless, let's be real, nobody is destroying 17th-century books. The "rare" books we're talking about here still have copyright owners who just don't bother p
67.
by olalonde 2mo ago
Replace bison with some random animal no one's ever heard about, and photos with literal clones of the animal, and you've got a much better metaphor. Not to forget that in this world, brand new animals are created every day.
68.
by olalonde 2mo ago
This is a problem whether it's AI companies buying them or three random dudes. The real solution is to get the copyright owners to keep distributing copies, or to change copyright law.
69.
by olalonde 2mo ago
This feels like a manufactured controversy. What difference does it make to me what someone does with a book after they buy it? It's effectively unavailable to me regardless of what they do. If people are really concerned about these &
70.
by olalonde 2mo ago
Exactly my point. They say they don't want steak due to legal concerns rather than just admitting they're vegans.
71.
by olalonde 3mo ago
This has to be the first time I've seen a graph with an inverted scale.
72.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Let's hope judges are reasonable because if AIs aren't allowed to learn like humans do, we'll never get AGI.
73.
by olalonde 3mo ago
> were found to be derivative works of their training set, it would follow almost directly that their output is also a derivative work I doubt so. Let's say Harry Potter is in the training set and you ask the LLM to generate a quick
74.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Reminds me those Bitcoin threads where I would explain a use case it solved for me and everyone was like "nope that's impossible, there's no use case". And before the inevitable replies come in: no, I'm not saying A
75.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Actually, when you translate Chinese literally word for word, it sounds a lot like caveman English. 你不去，我也不去 You no go, I also no go 今天这里人很多 Today here person very many 下雨就不去 Fall rain then no go
76.
by olalonde 3mo ago
My understanding is that "one shotting" a C compiler from a single prompt would not be covered by copyright, but a large project like GCC containing thousands of individual contributions which each require human input most likely
77.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Would be cool to have models trained on specific eras of design, a bit like that LLM which was exclusively trained on pre-1931 text.
78.
by olalonde 3mo ago
I was referring to this decision: "To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. A
79.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Yes, they do. > Specifically, if a third party sues a commercial customer for copyright infringement for using Microsoft’s Copilots or the output they generate, we will defend the customer and pay the amount of any adverse judgments or s
80.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Courts have already set a precedent on this (it's fair use) and even if these decisions were overturned, the liability would fall on the LLM creators for the initial training, not on their users. The outputs would keep being treated in
81.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Anthropic and co basically have the opposite policy (for paid users): if you get sued for copyright infringement, they will indemnify you. That means they're confident it's not an issue. By the way, do you have a source on Midjour
82.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Yes, that's what I meant. It's harder to use the copyright excuse for those use cases.
83.
by olalonde 3mo ago
That's just not an issue in practice. All major AI labs match generated code against their training data to prevent outputting verbatim copies. They're so confident they won't output copyrighted code that they offer copyright
84.
by olalonde 3mo ago
I think they meant it as "indistinguishable from a human contribution".
85.
by olalonde 3mo ago
No, it's far-fetched to believe GCC would get sued for incorporating LLM-generated code.
86.
by olalonde 3mo ago
At the same time, they would be somewhat forced to concede those use cases if they wanted to stick to the copyright story. Maybe you're right but I remain skeptical.
87.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Not sure I understand. If some company or open source project is violating your copyright, you sue them for copyright infringement, no?
88.
by olalonde 3mo ago
Can't speak for others but I'm just tired of hearing far-fetched copyright concerns that mask the real motivation (ideological opposition to LLMs).
89.
by olalonde 3mo ago
> just that it can be done and that the copyright owner could come along and cause legal problems later. It's absolutely possible to have a fly-by contributor who purposefully asks for code that reproduces X/Y/Z without a
90.
by olalonde 3mo ago
It's enough to tell you that, if it does happen, it must be quite rare and not a widespread systemic issue. It's also worth noting that Anthropic and co are so confident that it's a non-issue that they offer full copyright in

More ›