Also: If he keeps up the talk of doom and gloom, then Amodei will be quite believable when he steps down and lets someone else direct Anthropic.

Whenever The Law approaches too closely for comfort, tech CEOs have a habit of stepping down and sideways into a less exposed role with low responsibility, but a controlling interest.

however, their physical facilities can be attacked by drones....

All of these are reasonable points. I would add one more: AI training on AI outputs.

The initial worry was that AI produced web content would be consumed by the next generation of AI causing model drift and collapse. Since then, AI companies have decided that daily user interactions are a source of clean signal that complements the web . But now that AI agents pretend to be humans, those "user" interactions will just lead to model collapse at a faster rate.

If Rust didn't encourage copypasta, why didn't they just vibe code those commans wit with claude? I suspect Anthropic would have gladly donated the tokens for a permanent MIT license credit. /s

It is similar to the current problem with AI and open source. Which isn't surprising, since the open source movement and Free software especially originated in academic circles. The issue in both cases is that a valuable resource has been created cooperatively, and the mechanism of enforcement of norms is purely social. Hence it is vulnerable to exploitation and sloppification by AI companies, which are deliberately not following any norms.

If someone has a solution, now would be a good time to start developing it. Otherwise I suspect the attacked communities will close off the commons to survive, and we will all be poorer for it.

We've had this conversation in excruciating detail before, about 6-9 months ago, and we've already established that you simply don't have the knowledge about Markov chains to have a meaningful discussion on LLMs. You're just wrong about this, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

Pretty much all of them so far. OpenAI is clearly looking to brute force science problems by hook and by crook and take credit wherever possible. They have a profitability deadline coming up, after all.

It's a good lesson, though. Don't talk to your AI like it's a confidante. It's a spy, and your secrets aren't safe. And when OpenAI goes bankrupt, your secrets will be sold to the next buyer.

Yup. The hookers make $500k/year, so it can't be them.

(the oldest profession will outlive AI replacement)

Eh.... I'd call that FinTech. Financial Engineering is more... optional.

When I'm worried my phone doesn't turn itself off, I just use a small flyswatter.

(And by small, I mean large.)

(And by flyswatter, I mean hammer.)

Works every time though!

(But it's expensive! I really ought to try this long press thing one day.)

When did it become acceptable to treat Dr Evil's henchmen poorly? I blame a lack of Austin Powers remakes in cinemas. Are you listening, Hollywood? Won't someone _please_ think of the children (and wives)?

These are not Markov chains. They're neural nets. They work via extremely complex chained fuzzy logic on superpositions of conceptual states.

They are, by definition, Markov chains. It's a Von Neumann architectural Finite State Machine processing a string of bytes, outputting bytes that get fed back in. That's a Markov chain.

Don't get hung up on bullshit about "extremely complex blah blah blah.". That's just designed to confuse you.

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?

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)