301–310 of 845 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sure you can, you could take a physical book, and painstakingly copy each page at a time, that is totally fair use.
Leaving aside the broader discussion... You cannot legally photocopy copy an entire book even if you own a physical copy. Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal argument or case law to support that.
It probably needs to be a law not an executive order but I don't hate the idea. States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in the prohibitive states and b…
.. which is the prevailing situation for people dealing with state-by-state age verification at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I missed the part where OpenAI got library cards for all the libraries in the world. Is having a library card a requirement for being hired over there?
I missed the part where we throw away rational logic skills Have you never been to a public library and read a book while sitting there without checking it out? Clearly, age is a factor here, and us olds are confused by this lack of understanding of how libraries function. I did my entire term paper without ever checking out books from the library. I just showed up with my stack of blank index cards, then left with t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone say which of the LLM companies is the least "shady"? If I want to use an LLM to augment my work, and don't have a massively powerful local machine to run local models, what are the best options? Obviously I saw the news about OpenAI's head of research openly supporting war crimes, but I don't feel confident about what's up with the other companies.
Just use what works for you. E.g. i'm very outspoken about my preferences for open llm practices like executed by Meta and Deepseek. I'm very aware of the regulatory caption and pulling up the ladder tactics by the "AI safety" lobby. However. In my own operations I do still rely on OpenAI because it works better than what I tried so far for my use case. That said, when I can find an open model based SaaS operator tha…
> OpenAI also reiterated its call for the government to take steps to support AI infrastructure investments and called for copyright reform, arguing that America’s fair use doctrine is critical to maintaining AI leadership. OpenAI and other AI developers have faced numerous copyright lawsuits over the data used to build their models.
Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe…
> - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) For that you need actual AGI and it's nowhere in sight other than in the dreams of a few doom prophets. Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot surpass its training data.
Technology has made enforcing copyright impossible, and any attempt to enforce it just hinders technological advancement, while still not solving the global enforceability of copyright.
Lets stop wasting our time on this concept, the laws around it and the whole debate. Copyright is dead.
I'm arguing lets move on.
Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe…
> We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) We don’t have that and we don’t know if it will happen. Meanwhile, people put in time to create work and they are being exploited by not being paid. I think openai should pay.
The real point is copyright is no longer enforceable, and some of our biggest societal forces incentivize us to not care about copyright.
This debate and these laws are effectively dead, some just don't know it yet.
>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations…
Regulatory capture is a common strategy for synthetic monopolistic competitive firms, and suckers high on their own ego. Deepseek already proved regulation will not be effective at maintaining a market lead. =3
If you get fined millions of dollars (for copyright, of course) if you're found to have anything resembling DeepSeek on your machine - no company in the US is going to run it.
The personal market is going to be much smaller than the enterprise market.