This is kind of like saying that car wrecks wouldn't happen if we had training and standards that excluded 95% of drivers
More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.
Sam et al warn us to take actions that will save them from bankruptcy
What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?
15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.
Monopolist wants the competition to slow down while they speed up in secret.
They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.
A few days ago there was a story about how an AI store was failing horribly. It can't do that, but at the same time will destroy us?
Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.
Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.
I don't think training a model with copyrighted data is any kind of gray zone at all.
Running inference against such a model _might_ be infringing.
But I don't see the legal argument that model training would be.
Think of model training as lossy data compression. You provide an input, it produces a compressed artifact, and it can no longer reproduce the original when you uncompress it. It can produce _something_. It cannot reproduce the original.
On slashdot, we all agree that format shifting copyrighted works should be allowed and unrestricted, right?
If there is applicable case law here about how lossy a "reproduction" can be before copyright has something to say about it, that would be relevant. Do you know of any?
The rebates on the batteries you earn over time, and to do so you must export some of your stored battery power back to the grid during peak hours.
Is this actually a substantial amount of energy? I'm in Utah (Rocky Mountain Power) and RMP also pays me to use my batteries... but the amount of energy they draw is tiny. 8-10 times per week they draw on my batteries, but it's like 4 kW peak draw (my batteries can sustain 20 kW), and generally for less than 30 seconds, so in any given week I'm only contributing like 0.2 kWh. As I understand it, this is because RMP uses my batteries not really to "serve loads", per se, but just as grid stabilization; brief backfill to keep the voltage from sagging.
Obviously my batteries do serve *my* loads, which reduces the load on the grid, but that's not what RMP pays me for.
Does CA make heavier use of residential batteries to feed the grid?
I think you're repeating something that feels emotionally valid but in my experience, isn't factually (or legally) accurate.
I have found AI models to be frustratingly _obedient_ of copyright.
I'll be in a situation where I ask a specific question about what a document says, and the AI repeatedly says the work is copyrighted and it can't just tell me what it says _verbatim_, but it can answer specific questions for me in its own words (while telling me to check the original).
Two examples from my life are procedural questions about what Roberts Rules of Order would require in a given situation, and, what ASD STE-100 says about how to name/word things.
The applicable US law would appear to be USC 17 Sec 106 and 107, which on one hand limits derivative works, but on the other, allows fair use for purposes of teaching, scholarship, or research.
(USC references provided by AI, btw. Which I haven't read)
I used to agree with you, and then oddly enough, about 25-30 years ago, I came across this signature on another regular slashdot posters postings:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
(AI tells me the attribution is "The Red Lily", Anatole France, 1894)
Most of his donations were to Democrats, so he has no chance for that. https://time.com/6241262/sam-b...
And JD Vance called him Hitler. Trump accepts changes of heart as long as they include sufficient groveling and self-humiliation. SBF's problem is he doesn't currently have any money, and doesn't have a lot of friends to put up cash for him either. If SCOTUS will overturn his fine on a technicality and he can get some or all of that money back, then he'll have the cash to buy a pardon. Obviously he needs to get it done in the next 2 years, four months.
Like another pseudonym makes a difference or changes the value of what I said.
The fact that you're unwilling to pay the incredibly low price of attaching even a pseudonym to your statement speaks volumes. Not even by mentioning it in your AC post.
No, he was convicted of illegally structuring of bank withdrawals to evade bank reporting requirements.
Had he said "I'm paying hush money to someone I sexually abused a few decades ago earlier", the whole financial part of it would have been legal.
A budget is just a method of worrying before you spend money, as well as afterward.
