The NYT should just fucking fail, fuck them.

Real papers could charge for access. But only Nazis would pay the NYT.

Flock is potentially an enormously useful tool, but most cops aren't smart enough to use it correctly. That does make it a poorly designed tool, since they are apparently the primary target market. It's also too easily abused to be allowed to exist.

If the wrong equipment is used it absolutely can cause this kind of damage, and your comment only proves that you have no idea what you're talking about AND didn't bother to do a web search as a sanity check like a competent person would have done.

Those people are voting for violence. You left that out of your analysis, despite it being of critical importance. It's that because it destroyed your argument completely?

If it's only a thousand dollars, that's nowhere near 1% money. But I also can't believe it will be with owning at that price.

The way to solve it is to stop sucking the dicks off the wealthy every time they whip them out like sfcat does, and like you are doing right now by being such a little bitch.

womp womp

Shouldn't we expect (in the sense of demanding, not in the sense of actually expecting) Microsoft to be ready for changes like this? This isn't the first time it's come up.

The NYT already has negative value, they boosted literal Nazis in the run-up to WWII and they boost effective Nazis on a regular basis.

Google doesn't have negative value yet, but its value sure has dropped a lot since they started using AI bullshit with fake citations at the top of their search page.

Me too, on mobile. Mobile firefox is pure trash and just browsing Slashdot causes it to crash multiple times a day, so I switched to Brave as the only mobile browser which successfully blocks Slashdot's worst popover fuckery — which actually makes the site unusable because I can't squint that hard.

What exactly do you think the definition of capitalism is? And are you aware that the actual definition is only six words long?

Yes, but the cousin also doesn't need sleep and can produce a lot of work

Shut the fuck up, Donny, you're out of your element.

You cannot get the training data out of a model unless it's so overtrained on a specific piece of it that it actually impairs its usefulness for other things. So no, those works are not in there.

However, you might still be creating derivative works with an LLM, because the standard for those is "substantial recognizable elements" and the exact meaning of that can be fuzzy.

Maybe, kind of.

But there are two issues here which say no.

The first and more irrelevant argument is that LLMs aren't actually thinking, their process is not like ours just because they use neural networks, which bear only a passing resemblance to how our brain might work. We don't even know all of the details there and we STILL have enough info to know they aren't the same.

But the real argument is that copyright exists to protect the work of humans to induce them to make more work, so what the software is doing inside is wholly irrelevant.

That's before you even get into the actual weeds of copyright, like whether LLM output is even copyrightable at all, and if so, which copyright applies.