Artists are trained on prior copyrighted works. Musicians are trained on prior copyrighted works. Authors are trained on prior copyrighted works.

ChatGPT is trained on prior copyrighted works. And yet ChatGPT (and not artists nor musicians) is infringing?

A reviewer can generate a summary of Plaintiff's copyrighted works, only if the reviewer was trained on Plaintiff's copyrighted works.

From the suit:

57. Because the OpenAI Language Models cannot function without the expressive information extracted from Plaintiffs' works (and others) and retained inside them, the OpenAI Language Models are themselves infringing derivative works, made without Plaintiffs' permission and in violation of their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

There's the core of the suit: They want the court to declare that the language models trained on the plaintiff's works are infringing regardless of whether the result resembles the plaintiff's work, regardless of whether the result is transformative, and regardless of whether the material was originally gathered legally.

Emphasis: the suit doesn't distinguish HOW the material was gathered, only that the language models somehow make use of it, and didn't ask permission first. They want to declare that regardless of anything else, said permission is required.

The Master Control Program views your comment with disfavor. Belief in the Users will be eradicated!

automatic renewal is good for things that your life depends upon, like insulin refills, or possibly power (or internet).

Anything else, IMO, if you don't care enough to renew it manually, you shouldn't renew it automatically.

At this point in the thread, I have no idea what specific thing you are saying "yes it does happen" about.

Would you clarify that? And could you provide citations to the statements and testimony of Dr Fauci that prove that point? This isn't a "I don't believe you". It's "I have no idea what point you are trying to make". Providing the citations simply shortcuts the optional "prove it" phase.

Much appreciated, if you oblige. ... Full disclosure: If you don't, I will almost certainly forget that I asked. :)

Sorry, friend. A lot of us replying to this post are programmers who've spent their full careers doing this stuff. As such, it can be difficulty telling an honest question from trolling, on the internet.

The reply pointing you to wikipedia is spot on, and will answer your question.

Been on projects that have worked for **years** in "hair on fire" mode, trying to kill bugs AND implement the new features to keep the clients happy.

There are times where Technical Debt becomes so overwhelming you do have to declare bankruptcy and rewrite from scratch.

... so you're saying a program should tend towards simplicity in all cases?

Good luck getting the budget and manpower time to justify that. As a greybeard, I wish you well. (Want to know where a good portion of the grey in my beard came from?)

Hmm... "Obviously." "Obviously." Right. I don't think that is the word you really want here. I think the word you want is, "I don't want to have to prove it, or point to some study that did so."

Interesting that you don't say the same for dynamic typing. But I guess that would detract from your point.

You're right. And speaking as a maintenance programmer who has worked in several languages, I can say that incompetence comes in many flavors. The worst of which is the programmer who is given a hammer-shaped design and thinks all tasks are nail-shaped.

This includes deciding that dynamic typing is their be-all and end-all solution.

Two observations:

First, that over the years, Strongly Typed languages like C++ have gained dynamic typing features (auto). And that Dynamic Typed languages like Python have gained static typing features (type hints). So there is value in both approaches.

Second, from the perspective of trying to maintain 15+ year old, poorly documented Python - with the original authors unavailable or VERY unavailable - the opportunities for a Clever-Boots programmer to show their cleverness, exploiting dynamic typing without leaving clues to WTF they are doing is very great. I have considerably less difficulty understanding statically typed spaghetti code than dynamically typed spaghetti code. I've had many fewer instances where I needed to actually run the flipping code in a debugger, in order to find what type of variables are going in and out, in dynamic typed languages than I have in statically typed ones.

What do you say about someone who has use-cases at hand to support their argument?

Oh my god! A type of radar that can see at night! I wonder how the brits managed in WWII, with radar that can only see in daylight!
/s

Ah hah hah hah!

I know what you're thinking.
Have I filed 6 affidavits today, or only 5?

Well, to tell you the truth, I kinda lost track myself. But being as this briefcase can hold a lot more than 5 affidavits and witness statements, the kind that would blow your defamation case out of the water, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?

Well, do ya, counsel? Do ya?

In past years, it has been noted that Big Tax companies have offered "free filing services", where it was exceedingly difficult to get to them, where they offered excuses such as you describe for not being able to file YOUR taxes, etc. I would not put money down that they had changed their stripes.

You may have hit one of those sites.

So, you're in favor of the Russian government cutting off all outside information from the Russian people, in order to control the narrative? How very Orwellian of you.

A trivial search didn't find this information for me. Got a link?

Note: that same search said, "Google will still index the page, it just won't read the contents." If you have a link showing that google will scrape that data regardless of the robots.txt file, I'd appreciate that too.

Hmm... did they have "robots.txt" on said page? If not, is it relevant to the robots.txt discussion?

I am amused by your +5 insightful vote, given that literally nothing you've said - other than people not understanding the bills they get from their lawyers - is true.

• Does a better job? Nope.
• Doesn't fuck over their clients? Nope.
• Understand what you're paying for with DoNotPay? Nope. and Nope.

Chewbacca defense: Here is this unrelated thing, focus on this.
DoNotPay plaintiffs: This thing is advertised a "robot lawyer". A lawyer is a specific thing (Words have meanings! Who knew?) No lawyers are ever involved.

Fanboy for DoNotPay all you like. Just - please - don't do it in abject ignorance of what is involved.

Wow, that's quite a lot you've packed in there. And a lot of it is contradictory.

On the one hand, you are saying that (Big Tech Companies) are taking content for free. On the other, you are saying that if those same companies don't do that, (news company) will go bankrupt. So your answer is "force Big Tech Companies to take that content AND THEN force them to pay for it." Huh. I don't think that works the way you think it works.

You say (Big Tech Companies) make (news companies) invisible. And yet somehow you can still go directly to

• https://www.nytimes.com/
• https://www.oregonlive.com/
• https://www.azcentral.com/local/scottsdale/

Etc... Google isn't in television news. Isn't in radio news. Isn't in print news. And yet, it is able to replace those outlets? Could it be the Buggy-whip problem? Do people want their cars in colors other than black?

Hmm... was Facebook creating that content? No? Didn't think so. And as for those conspiracy theories... have you been following the Dominion Voting Machine litigation news? How (Big Media Conglomerate) promoted conspiracy theories that it knew to be false?

... So why would you be allowed to dictate "the business of" (Big Tech Company)? Why that so selectively? Why not also dictate "the business of" (local news company)? How about (farm corporation)? (Auto manufacturer)? (Computer hardware designer)? Where does your authority to declare "the business of" someone else stop? Once you start down that road, I'm not seeing any natural limits.

What I find most odd about your post here is that you don't once mention "local news", or how (Big Tech Companies) don't produce it. Or how many of the news outlets you cry about having closed use aggregated news sources (AP, etc) for the source of they non-local news and how many of those same news sources have shut down local reporting.

I agree to several of your points: monopoly is bad. (Big Tech Company) is outcompeting (local news outlet) in some ways. I suggest instead that (local news outlet) already started failing to compete by relying on (aggregated news sources). Internet news simply continued and exaggerated that trend. I suggest that (local news outlet) failed to compete because did not want to change its business model or its scope.

What it really sounds like is that you are saying "Google owes local news a living because it is doing better than they are". And, "they have some money. Help us take it away from them." Sounds kinds stupid when you say it out loud, doesn't it?