Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
In my experience, it’s likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive “AI bad! How dare you say AI good!” Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called “technology” there’s a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.
If they don’t then someone else will.
Meanwhile, publishers: “why is everyone using AI instead of viewing our sites themselves?”
Interestingly, I’m not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell “people don’t visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them.” (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).
Perhaps it’s some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don’t see any popup telling me that, but I’ve got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I’m not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.
Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.
Any reason to say that other than that it didn’t give the result you wanted?
The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.
That’s a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.
What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can’t just keep dissolving stuff forever.
And what would “total failure” look like? It’s a mountain, it’s not going to just collapse into goo.
And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can’t simply try again.
And no bomb is irresistible.
It made the ruling stronger, not weaker. The judge was accepting the most extreme claims that the Authors were making and still finding no copyright violation from training. Pushing back those claims won’t help their case, it’s already as strong as it’s ever going to get.
As far as the judge was concerned, it didn’t matter whether the AI did or did not “memorize” its training data. He said it didn’t violate copyright either way.
I don’t see what distinction you’re trying to draw here. It previously had trouble generating full glasses of wine, they made some changes, now it can. As a result, AIs are capable of generating an image of a full wine glass.
This is just another goalpost that’s been blown past, like the “AI will never be able to draw hands correctly” thing that was so popular back in the day. Now AIs are quite good at drawing hands, and so new “but they can’t do X!” Standards have been invented. I see no fundamental reason why any of those standards won’t ultimately be surpassed.
The judge writes that the Authors told him that LLMs memorized the content and could recite it. He then said “for purposes of argument I’ll assume that’s true,” and even despite that he went ahead and ruled that LLM training does not violate copyright.
It was perhaps a bit daring of Anthropic not to contest what the Authors claimed in that case, but as it turns out the result is an even stronger ruling. The judge gave the Authors every benefit of the doubt and still found that they had no case when it came to training.
That’s not what this ruling was about. That part is going to an actual trial.
For the purposes of this ruling it doesn’t actually matter. The Authors claimed that this was the case and the judge said “sure, for purposes of argument I’ll assume that this is indeed the case.” It didn’t change the outcome.
That’s not at all what this ruling says, or what LLMs do.
Copyright covers a specific concrete expression. It doesn’t cover the information that the expression conveys. So if I paint a portrait of myself, that portrait is covered by copyright. If someone looks at the portrait and says “this is a portrait of a tall, dark, handsome deer-creature of some sort with awesome antlers” they haven’t violated that copyright even if they’re accurately conveying the same information that the portrait is conveying.
The ruling does cover the assumption that the LLM “contains” the training text, which was asserted by the Authors and was not contested by Anthropic. The judge ruled that even if this assertion is true it doesn’t matter. The LLM is sufficiently transformative to count as a new work.
If you have an LLM reproduce a copyrighted text, the text is still copyrighted. That doesn’t change. Just like if a human re-wrote it word-for-word from memory.
That part is not what this preliminary jugement is about. The torrenting part is going to go to an actual trial. This part was about the Authors’ claim that the act of training AI itself violated copyright, and this is what the judge has found to be incorrect.
Argue it to the judge, I guess. That’s how the legal system works.
No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.