... ok ... I'm game ... Hey jdlenke, can you explain what's Updog?

No, no, no. That's now how LLMs work.

First - we already have precedence: the fee for a library copy is already significantly more than a single-user copy for traditional printed media. Those library copies are modeled on a multiple, but limited usage. In the case of LLMs the usage is vastly larger than the a traditional library and deserves to be negotiated higher.

Second - LLMs aren't just 'reading' the material, they are republishing (indirectly) for *every single response they generate*, and here's the real kicker - they are republishing (indirectly) even for seemingly *unrelated* responses - because every document used in the training is part of the language usage - both for what it chooses to say, and what it chooses to *not* say.

We can go around touting 'information wants to be free' all we want, but somebody has to put in the effort to collect that information and produce a coherent overarching concept. If we as a society don't provide some compensation model then we have the classic tragedy of the commons setup. Meanwhile *disinformation* already has a ready supply of funding.

This opt-out model is obviously absurd:

1. legitimate sites create original content and add robots.txt specs to opt-out of AI training
2. web-scrapers copy content and post to a numerous ad-laden sites, sans robots.txt
3. Google/OpenAI consider themselves free to use the content from those sites without limitations.

It's just data-laundering. It gives the illusion of good, corporate citizens while simultaneously incentivizing Google/OpenAI/whomever to *not* identify the original source of data.

Yes! Thank you! How come nobody talks about this? Don't they have to download/install the entire LLM to recover the compressed information? Or transfer back and forth to a cloud service to do the same?

Tell us you're too stupid to know when you're being scammed without saying the phrase, "I'm too stupid to know when I'm being scammed." You didn't "clear" $450 - you got back a fraction of the overcharge that these minigames create via friction in the market.

Nope. Actual capitalism is premised on the notion of an open market. And "open" requires unfettered access to buy/sell. These minigames obfuscate the buy/sell mechanism beyond our ability to track beneficial trades. This leads to... well, people like yourself thinking they "clear" money through these schemes, and indeed being quite brazenly convinced that falling for the schemes is a positive indicator of their own cleverness.

Thank you for saying this. If I had mod points they'd be yours.

This is a fallacy common amongst the managerial staff - the belief that NRE comprises the bulk of project expense. The reality in every system I've seen successfully deployed is that (1) development never ceases, it is an ongoing expense (2) ongoing support & maintenance costs have to be on par with the initial NRE costs, to keep the project at a steady-state. Fail at either of those pieces and the project withers and is soon obsolete. Raising the standard requires an ongoing output of effort & expense - it is not a one time event.

It matters because as our cultures become interconnected were are working to unify the nomenclature - to have a 1:1 relationship between names and concepts. When that name has a grotesque backstory, it is unacceptable.

1. Yes we are unifying towards using single names - it takes time but it is the natural progression of language and human nature. We are lazy by design, and having multiple names for the same concept is inefficient. 2. If the names are benign it is of little consequence, when the names are explicitly racist in nature then we should give them priority.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this. They were precisely saying 'nobody on earth of any consequence'. Indigenous people were considered subhuman - their customs and knowledge considered the ramblings of savages. You may not mean that in your conversations, but you are grossly underestimating the racial and cultural ideology present throughout what we call western civilization.

Ukraine and Tibet eagerly await your diplomatic solutions. Also I believe Taiwan is very interested to see the details of your proposal.

If this was the 17th century you might have a point. But this is 2021. Being an 'island' doesn't make you isolated or have significant impact on import/export.

Even amidst the pandemic over 80,000 tons of freight went in to Australia each month. And that's just the registered freight. (src: https://www.bitre.gov.au/stati...)

The coastline of Australia is in excess of 25,000km. Ships come and go through registered ports and unregistered travel every day. (src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

This is the ultimate problem with pro-gun arguments: they're based on fantasy, meanwhile in reality innocent people are dying to gun violence.

In the US we have one station that produces content for adults: PBS. The UK alone has far more content of that quality. Then you add Scandinavia, France, Brazil, etc. I think the geopolitical exceptionalism story is just inane banter. Reality is much simpler: Americans consume content at a rate higher than the American entertainment industry can/will produce. With this new fangled internet and streaming capabilities we're choosing new episodes of foreign content over reruns of Spongebob/Jersey Shore/Kardashi-whoevers.

Cancel culture is the left not realizing *they* are becoming the fascist state. Government isn't some monster that lives up the hill, it is the everyday interactions of the society. When you are depriving someone of their livelihood - and thus their healthcare, shelter, and food - on the basis that you disagree with their statements then you are the dictator.

If society is allowed to beat an individual in to oblivion for espousing their views, then that individual doesn't have freedom of speech or expression.

As it happens I find Gina repugnant, but this cancel nonsense has to stop. It is far, far more dangerous than trivializing the holocaust, and not many things can make that claim.

I'll grant you NPR et al could do a better job on depth of content. But for the issues you pointed out: it's not reasonable to expect our journalists to lead the charge for public change. The concerned public (i.e. you, me, people angry at the corruption/injustice) have to do the bulk of the work. The journalists primary role is to communicate the ongoings in pockets of society to the public at large. We have been spoiled by very insightful investigative journalism, and this has made most of lazy and complacent (myself included).

The OP is no longer available. However we should be clear: the damage done by Trump will impact our society for generations. We will continue to bring him up as it pertains to realizing, and hopefully repairing, this damage.