What is there to envy? Musk made a stupid business decision based on a whim, was forced to pay an exorbitant amount of money for something he didn't actually want, made even dumber decisions on the pursuit of "freeze peach", and tanked the valuation of the company by at least 60% in a year. The fact that you think the writers around here are envious of something like that says more about you than it does about them.
You spent all of 2023Fixed it for you.cheerleading fordocumenting the collapse of X-Twitter
Why not?
No countries have free speech besides the US, including EuropeEurope is a continent, not a country, and most western countries have laws protecting freedom of speech. Stop drinking the freedom cool-aid.
And I really love how this is all proving Musk rightHey, even broken clocks are right twice a day.
he’s putting principle over profitFor once in his life. He completely buckled when foreign governments wanted to control content on Twitter.
despite your opening sentence (which I do give you a little bit of credit for) you kinda studiously avoid saying “yeah, Musk was right about all of this shit”That's because he wasn't right "about all this shit". He is right that this particular law is shit, and should be challenged. That's it.
Why shouldn’t Middle-Earth Enterprises kick ass and take names while defending the IP they’re charged with protecting?Because no one in their right mind would believe that the Tolkien estate had moved into the food industry. They're not defending their IP, they're abusing it to smack down anything that sounds remotely like something they own.
ChatGPT is a tool of copyright infringement, not the infringing party.There's no such thing as a "tool of copyright infringement". The people using a tool in a particular way are the infringers.
As someone else has pointed out, they're not actually extracting the training data. They adjust and refine prompts until they hit an extremely close approximation of the original image. The model doesn't have access to a 1:1 copy of the original that it can throw at you.
I’m not sure there are comparable tools. Your video editing software doesn’t have Disney movies in itNor do LLM's have the content they were trained on in them.
It is not plausible that it is doing that by generating this on the fly without what amounts to a copy.Not plausible to you, you mean. LLM's don't have storage of the datasets they were trained on, end of story. They can't produce a copy; they're recreating it based on, in this case, very narrow parameters, similar to how someone recreates an article, a picture or a song from memory. That's not infringement.
federal government ALWAYS acts to expand COPYRIGHT, historicallyAt the behest of corporations, mind you.
If we decide that LLM/AI gets the same fair usage rights as humans then, for me, that’s only going to be good for the LLM companies.Would you rather see the companies sued out of existence before getting off the ground, or not being able to afford training licenses, making the LLM's useless? Because that's effectively what would happen if they were to be treated like the NYT wants them to be treated.
Why are you bringing up section 230? It's a copyright lawsuit.
Even if this was a case of copyright infringement(which it isn't), that's not the same as theft. Saying that the content was "stolen" is simply wrong.
Sometimes, it's almost as if these companies are trying to push people towards piracy.
Critiquing the police isn't hate-speech, and it's only anti-police because the police are so often anti-consequences.
Well, regarding dealers and other violent criminals, in the paraphrased words of George Carlin: "They're used to the threat of death. It's an occupational hazard!" So the death penalty absolutely wouldn't deter them in the slightest.
That's because there's such a thing as nuance, something you clearly lack the understanding of. There's no effective age verification system that wouldn't, in some way, infringe on the privacy rights of children as well as harm online anonymity. You may be okay with that, but some of us aren't. And really, the first line of defense between kids and porn should be their parents, anyway.
That this blog regularly opposes preventing the involvement of minors in the porn industry by any means necessary is truly loathsome.What the hell are you talking about?
This is a very funny and ironic reply, because literally every single thing you say in response is considered and countered in the original post.No, the original post is nothing but unsubstantiated claims and strawmen. But thanks for trying to counter without actually countering.
Could be because "organized criminals" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.