Comment Cuban Missile Crisis (Score 2) 61
So right now the doomsday clock is closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis (when it was at 7 minutes)?
Excuse me if I don't take it very seriously.
So right now the doomsday clock is closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis (when it was at 7 minutes)?
Excuse me if I don't take it very seriously.
>They make copies in order to do training.
Yes, but making copies in order to compile information about a protected work was already litigated and won in the Authors Guild v Google case.
"The court's summary of its opinion is:
In sum, we conclude that:
Google's unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google's commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.
Google's provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement."
So at what point could the copyright infringement even happen? Is it in the training of the data and adjusting the weights? Is it the fact that those weights exist in a state that can somewhat reproduce the data it was trained on? Or is it when we prompt it to reproduce that data? My bet is, if anything, the courts will come down against the last one. Training data is already sufficiently transformative as to not infringe copyright. It's only when it actually spits out something substantially similar to an existing work that copyright is violated.
Incidental copying is allowed under copyright. If no copy of the source exists in the LLM, there is no copyright infringement.
>Without a license, purely for developing software, and en masse, yes.
You don't need a license to compile data about an article, and that's all that an LLM is - data about the frequency of words and their order. It's highly transformative, and this sort of thing was already fought an won by Google when they digitized and made searchable millions of books without their copyright holder's permission and for commercial purposes. An LLM doesn't even retain the original work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
"The court's summary of its opinion is:
In sum, we conclude that:
1. Google's unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google's commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.
2. Google's provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement.
Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer."
I think you're looking at the post id and not the user id. I did the same thing at first.
Check the edits on the page just from today. Lol.
My company is exactly like that, we have around 150 employees, and there are never more than a handful of people still on slack after 5pm. It took me some time to train myself to actually log off at quitting time, but now it's second nature.
What company is more likely to survive? The one that wastes tons of money renting office space, or the one that spends that money on productive things?
Can you think of a startup that is trying to force people to work in an office? Why would any company that's trying to get a foothold want to waste money on an office space when that money can be better spent on better talent/tech? When those companies grow out of the startup phase, why would they decide to suddenly dish out huge capital costs for an office when they know that all the work gets done well remotely? The work from home horse is out of the barn, and it's not going back.
A lot of the places that want to require working at an office won't attract the talent that places that offer work from home do. They'll go out of business and it all works out in the end!
Why is trying to catch students cheating ethically questionable? If the student isn't going to cheat, they won't be searching for those specific questions.
This is not true, at least at the moment. Current reserve requirements are zero.
>I'm sure you could run some interesting studies taking various populations and checking out their IQ
This has been done. A lot.
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
