531–540 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then surely a model distilling another model is transformative and fair use. Yes it is, in the legal/copyright sense of fair use. That's why they ban it in their TOS. Which customers agree to when signing up for the service.
How long until books come with TOS, then?
However, if content is “licensed” instead of “sold” …
What a shame for Cursor. I found it a great tool - I actually liked Composer 2.5; but now being bought by SpaceX has for a while left a bad taste - and they keep pushing Grok and now GrokBot. I took the 50% discount instead of cancelling - but with this I'll likely not renew. So sad to watch them go from great to mediocre in such a short time.
Didn't Kamprad have some pretty strong ties to the Nazi party? Yet you have a bad taste in your mouth because Cursor gets bought by SpaceX! Virtue signaling in glass houses...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies that didn't give away all their content for free to anyone have actually denied AI companies from training on all their data without paying a fee. Reddit, Associated Press, etc. For those who chose to give it all away, the ship has sailed, but they did choose to give it away for free to anyone so they can't complain that they succeeded.
At what point did the authors whose books showed up in the ai companies training data sets “give it all away” as you claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - yours is just some optional text nobody reads or understands and is probably not legally required to adhere to. Theirs is a contract signed by their customer who they know did understand it.
Accessing the site may already mean that you agree to TOS. Also if you don’t see an explicit copyright terms on some text on the internet it doesn’t mean that it’s public domain. Same as checking a checkbox. Text being small and somewhere is not an excuse for a corporation to steal and sell other people’s work.
No, you don't need to agree to TOS. I'm sure you never actually agree to them and you're not going to jail for it. If you believe that, I hope you never visited cnn.com, for example. Their Terms of Use is 11,000 words. Are you sure you have agreed to that when you clicked on some random news link? Are you sure you're happy to to surrender your legal defense and its expenses to them if they make a claim against you? You're OK that they have no liability for sharing your PII when they're not authorized to? You won't complain if you pay for a subscription and they don't give you access to the subscription content, don't refund your payment, and don't even tell you why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem like a lot of the valuations and infrastructure investments for these companies only make sense if each one assumes they will be the first and only one to invent superintelligence and that it will largely replace all knowledge work.
In which case the global economy is dead and there’s no one to buy their work?
you only need people's money if you can't control their labor.
did a plantation owner in the 1600s need the money of his slaves ?
if you control a robot that can fight and take over land, enslave workers for things robots are bad at, harvest food, create buildings etc. what do you need other people for ? your entertainment? robots can do that too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll remind the reader if they downvote without mentioning why, there’s no opinion really being conveyed. Just a stub of a conversation. I don’t care about the points. Just the chat, which seems finished.
Sure, no opinion really being conveyed. But it didn't come from the person you were talking to, so editing on a sarcastic "great answer" doesn't really work. The person you were talking to just hadn't responded within the first hour. They still might.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Standard copyright boilerplate. Not terms of service distinct from copyright, which is the subject of this thread.
If you read the whole copyright page of a book and come away with the conclusion that it's anything but terms of use for the book, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For example, never will you see printed in a book something like "this book is for the exclusive use of the purchaser and you cannot lend, resale or otherwise make available to other parties" - if such a thing was possible, like most software EULAs do, publishers would be all over it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't be pretentious and frame it as a morality statement. Just call it what it is.
Framing your competition killing as morality is also something you should do to be successful.