qarl

10 ms·

241.
by qarl 5mo ago
Personally I think the quantum immortality/suicide argument points directly at the trouble with the "duality". It's a perfectly physical/mechanical argument that demonstrates that consciousness is much much more biz
242.
by qarl 5mo ago
I don't understand. I have standing instructions with my agents: do not commit anything without review by at least two sub agents. The chance of two agents hallucinating at the same time in the same way is almost nil. Why do people st
243.
by qarl 5mo ago
Yes but my mother-in-law doesn't understand it, so it's a lie.
244.
by qarl 6mo ago
I'm just happy you agree with me.
245.
by qarl 6mo ago
It's a shame that rudeness is so prevalent on this platform now.
246.
by qarl 6mo ago
So then you agree with me that training itself is not a violation, it's whether the output is a violation.
247.
by qarl 6mo ago
But that's about the output, not the training. We agree: outputs that supplant the original are the problem. A model constrained to produce only fair use outputs causes no such harm — regardless of what it was trained on.
248.
by qarl 6mo ago
Yes. I agree. But many people argue that training itself is a copyright violation. That's the position I'm countering here.
249.
by qarl 6mo ago
AH. So you agree that it's not illegal.
250.
by qarl 6mo ago
AH. Thank you.
251.
by qarl 6mo ago
Good, we're agreed. My only point here is that training is not inherently a copyright violation.
252.
by qarl 6mo ago
But why should separate licensing be required at all? A search engine reads and indexes every word of every page it crawls. No one argues that requires licensing, only that the outputs must respect copyright. Why should training be differen
253.
by qarl 6mo ago
Yes. But training is not copying.
254.
by qarl 6mo ago
My apologies - I'm speaking loosely of course. Translate all my claims about machines breaking the law into claims about humans using machine breaking the law.
255.
by qarl 6mo ago
I'm not sure your argument is supported by the actual law as written.
256.
by qarl 6mo ago
But my question is about your point of scale. I don't understand why it should be allowed for one savant to study and answer questions about one book, but wrong for a company to hire one million savants to answer questions about one mi
257.
by qarl 6mo ago
Well - maybe so. But the common belief is that training itself is a violation of copyright, no matter how it's done. That's the argument I'm countering here.
258.
by qarl 6mo ago
I tend to agree - but you assume that it would not be possible to create a model that can train on copyrighted work and only output text which would be considered fair use. That seems very possible to me, and undermines the "training i
259.
by qarl 6mo ago
Does it though? If they bought a copy for each machine?
260.
by qarl 6mo ago
Ok - but if a company were able to hire one million savants, you feel it should be illegal, because why? Can you cite something in the copyright laws themselves that suggest this scale distinction?
261.
by qarl 6mo ago
Well - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law.
262.
by qarl 6mo ago
To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Beloved, The Kite Runner, The Handmaid's Tale are all copyrighted works with a Cliff's Notes guide.
263.
by qarl 6mo ago
I see that as a distinction - but does it make a difference? If a company hired hundreds of savants, then it would be illegal for them to read books? I don't follow.
264.
by qarl 6mo ago
Hm. I'm not sure I follow your logic.
265.
by qarl 6mo ago
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human? Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as
266.
by qarl 6mo ago
Not necessarily.
267.
by qarl 6mo ago
So is it a problem when humans produce and monetize competing works? My understanding is that there quite an industry in humans reading books and synthesizing their points. Cliff's Notes, for example.
268.
by qarl 6mo ago
I'm not sure I follow. Can you say it a different way?
269.
by qarl 6mo ago
Yes, I have no objection to that part. It's the arguments that training itself is the problem. Sarah Silverman as the most prominent example.
270.
by qarl 6mo ago
No, if you read the article, the point is in the training, not the reproduction. That's what all these lawsuits are about - it's the training not the reproduction. I already agreed in my first comment that the reproduction is off

More ›