451–460 of 499 posts
Unfortunately, many whistleblowers don't take proper precautions to release information that will make them a target. QubesOS, disposable laptop, faraday cage, and never work from home. https://www.qubes-os.org/
Why do you need the Faraday cage?
It's an extra layer of protection against more powerful threat actors.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/locat...
Anyone who's a whistleblower should compile key docs and put it in a "dead man's switch" service that releases your testimony/docs to multiple news agencies in the event of your untimely demise. The company you're whistle blowing against and their major shareholders should know this exists. Also, regularly post public video attesting to you current mental state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good lord, what an atrocious Gish gallop of selective quotes and evidence. This might be one of the worst displays of sharpshooter logic I've ever seen. AND it features a quote from William Pierce, an infamous neo-Nazi. Probably more, but I gave up after the umpteenth unverifiable quote. Just goes to show how much modern right-wing propaganda aligns with traditional neo-Nazi propaganda.
> Good lord, what an atrocious Gish gallop of selective quotes and evidence. This might be one of the worst displays of sharpshooter logic I've ever seen. Ease up on the throttle there, LessWrong. You've blown the transaxle.
If you're ever up for an interview in your sources, I'll entertain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH, I'm kind of paranoid about CIA and FBI. Last time I travelled to the US on holiday, I was worried somebody would attempt to neutralize me because of my involvement in crypto. I don't think I have delusions of grandeur, I worry that the cost of exterminating people algorithmically could become so low that they could decide to start taking out small fries in batches. A lot of narratives which would have sounded in…
> I worry that the cost of exterminating people algorithmically could become so low that they could decide to start taking out small fries in batches. My guess is that the cost of taking out a small fry today is already extremely low, and a desperate low-life could be hired for less than $1000 to kill a random person that doesn't have a security detail.
High profile, protected target? You probably couldn't find a random low-life to do it, much less successfully. And no matter what jurisdiction you want to commit the murder in, it will be more expensive than if your target was a random average joe, or jane.
Country is a place where the rule of law and legal enforcement are strongly applied and taken seriously? It will become harder and more expensive. Criminals are often stupid, but even stupid criminals in countries that take legal matters seriously are rarely freewheeling about contract murder that they actually mean to commit. The pool of willing potential killers would be smaller in such countries.
And finally, the nature of the murder: Need to kill someone in a way that looks like suicide or accident? That won't be something you hire a low-life to do on the cheap.
On the other hand, if you just need someone with modest to poor protection dead and you live in a country with weak legal mechanisms, then the situation becomes as favorable as you could want given your murderous needs. Assuming you have the right connections, a random gangbanger or would-be gangbanger on a motorbike can do the job for very cheap indeed. In the country I live in this is common and the people (often just teenagers) paid to do it will go for broke if offered as little as a couple grand or sometimes much less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So in your view, when a human does it, he causes a minute of harm so we can ignore it, but chatGPT causes a massive amount of harm, so we need to penalize it. Do you realize how radical your position is? Yes, that's my view. No, I don't think that this is radical at all. For some reasons or another, it is indeed quiet uncommon. (Well, not in law, our politicians are perfectly capable of making laws based on the siz…
Don’t obfuscate, your view is that the stack overflow commentator, Quora answer writer, blog writer, in fact anyone who did not invent the knowledge he’s disseminating, is committing a small amount of evil. That is radical and makes no sense to me.
Clearly there is nuance that society compromises on certain things that would be problematic at scale because it benefits society. Sharing learned information disadvantages people who make a career of creating and compiling that information but you know, humans need to learn to get jobs and acquire capital to live and, surprisingly, die and along with them that information.
Or framing the issue another way, people living isn’t a problem but people living forever would be. Scale/time matters.
Here again I’ve fallen for the HN comment section. Defend your view point if you like I have no additional commentary on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an applied AI developer and CTO at a law firm, and we discuss the fair use argument quite a bit. It grey enough that whom ever has more financial revenues to continue their case will win. Such is the law and legal industry in the USA.
what twigs me about the argument against fair use (whereby AI ostensibly "replicates" the content competitively against the original) is that it assumes a model trained on journalism produces journalism or is designed to produce it. the argument against that stance would be easy to make.
Many artists don't like how image generators, trained on their original work, allow others to replicate their (formerly) distinctive style, almost instantly, for pennies.
Many authors don't like how language models can enable anyone to effortlessly create a paraphrased versions of the author's books. Plagiarism as a service.
Human artists and writers can (and do) do the same thing, but the smaller scale, slower speed, and higher cost reduces the economic effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web scraping is legal and benefiting from published works is entirely the point, so long as you don't merely redistribute it. Training on X doesn't run afoul of fair-use because it doesn't redistribute nor does using it simply publish a recitation (as Suchir suggested). Summoning an LLM is closer to the act of editing in a text editor than it is to republishing. His hang up was on how often the original works were be…
> Web scraping is legal and benefiting from published works is entirely the point, so long as you don't merely redistribute it. That's plainly false. Generally, if you redistribute "derivative works" you're also infringing. The question is what counts as derivative works, and I'm pretty sure lawyers and judges are perfectly capable of complicating the picture given the high stakes.
Soon people will get that you can no longer assume when two pieces of text are similar it is because of direct plagiarism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The model isn't trained on journalism only, you can't even isolate its training like that. It's trained on human writing in general and across specialties, and it's designed to compete with humans on what humans do with text , of which journalism is merely a tiny special case. I think the only principle positions to be had here is to either ignore IP rights for LLM training, or give up entirely, because a model desig…
the analogy in the anti-fair-use argument is that if I am the WSJ, and you are a reader and investor who reads my newspaper, and then you go on to make a billion dollars in profitable trades, somehow I as the publisher am entitled to some equity or compensation for your use of my journalism. That argument is equally absurd as one where you write a program that does the same thing. Model training is not only fair use,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Web scraping is legal and benefiting from published works is entirely the point, so long as you don't merely redistribute it. That's plainly false. Generally, if you redistribute "derivative works" you're also infringing. The question is what counts as derivative works, and I'm pretty sure lawyers and judges are perfectly capable of complicating the picture given the high stakes.
Direct derivative works of a single work is easy to prove by model activation but input/output similarity is much easier to get outrage points. True internal function would show that no-use is required to "distribute" derivative seeming content which is rather confusing and is effectively the defense. At these levels a derivative of a derivative is indistinguishable to the human eye anyway. Soon people will get that…
For one, if you can show that you didn't use the original copyrighted work, then your work is not a derivative, no matter how similar the end results are.
And then if the original work was involved, how it was used and what processes were used to are also relevant.
That's why OpenAI employees who did the scraping first-hand are valuable witnesses to those who are suing OpenAI.
Legal processes proceed in a way that is often counter-intuitive to technologists. IMHO you'd gain a better perspective if you actually tried to understand it rather than confidently assume what you already know from tech-land applies to law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction between a copy and a derivative work isn't the issue. A game is expressive content , regardless of whether it's cracked, modified, public domain, or whatever. If you distribute a pirated game, the thing you're distributing contains expressive content, so if somebody else holds copyright to that content then the use is infringing. My point is that with LLM outputs that's not true - according to the cop…
I think you're missing something really obvious here. Piracy is not expressive content. You call it a game, and therefore it must be - but it's not. It's simply an illegal good. It doesn't have to serve any purpose. It cannot be bound by copyright, due to the illegal nature. The Morris Worm wasn't copyrightable content. Something is not required to be expressive content, to be bound under law. That's not a requiremen…
Do you have a source that illegal works can’t be / aren’t copyrighted?
https://yjolt.org/copyrighted-crimes-copyrightability-illega...
Says for example:
> As long as a work is original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it is entitled to copyright protection and eligible for registration, regardless of its content. Thus, child pornography, snuff films or any other original works of authorship that involve criminal activities are copyrightable.