I guess I do not know what you are talking about, but to my defense you seem to make fairly hyperbolic assertions.
I assumed that "You know he's put the private data of the whole wold into elasticsearch." referred to Palantir Technologies.
I am eager to be pointed to more information on Mr. Thiel, now that you have brought him to my attention.

As for Mr. Thiel keeping a low profile, it seems you may be being sarcastic there given even before reading your response today a New York Time's interview with Peter Theil was released Friday.

I confess a week ago I maybe could have told you the name was familiar, that he has something to do with silicon valley tech; but I certainly could not have told you with any confidence that he was a co-founder of PayPal, early investor Facebook, and is behind the company Palantir Technologies that has been getting some controversial press lately. Peter Thiel was just not a name I paid attention to.

I just sat through the hour long Peter Theil interview conducted by Ross Douthat of the New York Times.
Thiel does present as a bit odd, but I do not think he is literally a bloodsucking ghoul; or at least he restrained himself from feeding on Mr. Douthat for an hour.

Googling "GE Bankruptcy" returns the exact opposite results.
While there are assertions that GE is on the decline, they have not filed for bankruptcy; but have split into three independent companies.
I am happy to concede Jack Welsh contributed to GE's decline, although I could not assert it with any confidence; nor can I back your claim that GE was destroyed or went through bankruptcy.
It does not defeat your claim Jack Welsh was some horrible person and GE would have been better under another CEO; but so far your presentation weakens any belief I may have been inclined to have in that narrative.

I did not know who boz was, I assume you are referring to Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, Meta's CTO.
It appears Boz did make statements, perhaps behind closed doors, that can be interrupted that way.
I would tend to agree, Facebook (now Meta) seems to be in decline; their growth is non sustainable without Meta Horizon Worlds and their XR hardware taking off.
I would assert though that whatever company nails the smart glasses wearable with the heads up display and integrated AI will have a few customers...

I hope Myspace Tom is off enjoying life somewhere, it does seem he was smart to get out before Myspace became worthless.
However, I would much rather be playing with XR tech and AI potentially influencing future tech as Zuckerberg seems to be able to do, rather than travelling and taking photos as Yahoo Finance asserts Tom Anderson does today.

I have never heard anyone make Zuckerberg a hero; he seems to always be dressed up as the evil villain; and we are all his helpless victims.
In fact the headline this morning about Meta apps accessing photos from your phone you have never published reinforces my decade old policy to never ever install Facebook or Meta software on a device with my personal information.
But hey, I am guilty. I love my Meta Quest 3, nothing else competes in price and features and ease of use; again come on Valve with the Deckard!
Furthermore, selling old stuff online is no longer a Craigslist posting, but has become a Facebook Marketplace posting; I tried to ignore that, but it works.
Unfortunately the decent folks have not stuck around and created the decentralized privacy respecting tools to support the social network we all should want; leaving a void filled with Meta, Tiktok, Twitter...
It seems it should be doable, and profitable, maybe not billion or trillion dollar profitable, but perhaps at least no easy; or maybe Zuckerberg and Thiel's goons show up, suck your blood, or simply offer you enough money to walk away and be happy rather than do good.
At least it must not be easy, otherwise someone would do it.

I agree, trying to thumb through Facebook to see what friends are doing has long been a hassle no worth attempting; now clogged with AI generated garbage; probably not the way to maintain their kingdom.

Because Facebook pretty much ran MySpace and Friendster out of business.
Not even Google managed to compete with Google Buzz or Google+.
Today LinkedIn, Snapchat, Twitter, and Tiktok combined still do not appear to beat Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Threads combined) in market cap, user base, or revenue.

What I take away from that, is I am not going to ignore what Zuckerberg releases or acquires tomorrow; because either he or his puppet masters have some skill at this business stuff.
They produce things that people use; that is saying something.
If Facebook, Instagram, and Threads went offline tomorrow I would probably not notice for a week, or until I read it on Slashdot, and I would not shed a tear.
I would hope they opened the Quest 3 like they did the Oculus Go before the Quest servers went dark though...

If they were senile and truly unable to make the decision in their right mind and you exploited this; then it seems there is not much to hand to you, you snatched a purse from an old helpless lady but on a grander scale.

I confess I did not know who Jack Welsh was before today, nor would I have guess the legendary US corporation was GE.
A quick bit of searching shows Jack took GE from a $12 billion market cap to over $400 billion from 1981 to 2001.
People apparently did not care for his management style and short term focus.
To assert GE was destroyed and that it was only a quick buck seems disingenuous; but I will leave it to you to cite some sources for your assertion there.
I would have pointed to your namesake Compaq, that company has been destroyed.

I am a big fan of PayPal, still use it now when I am buying something online not from Amazon.
I suspect Peter's wealth comes primarily from PayPal and an early investment in Facebook.
I have only recently heard about Palantir which I am suspect your quote is referring to.
If he can get ahold of the data it unfortunately is not private, but perhaps should be.
Just like Facebook, the issue is not someone collecting so called "private" data, the issue is people giving away their private data.
Cannot really blame Peter for making a business gathering it up.

I got tired of being an angry little victim, hating on successful people because they played the game better.
I think that mentality is poison, and spreading the lie that Zuck or others are so evil and we are victims makes things worse, not better.
Because people do not own up that if tomorrow every one signed out of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, and Quest today, Meta would shrivel up.
But they will not, because people love using those products, and no one has given them a better alternative.

You are right! I enjoyed Jaws, and I like sharks.
I enjoyed the Terminator, and I am obsessed with killer AI robots.
But my favorite was Titanic, and I cannot live without ice.

I like to think that the Social Network was a very entertaining documentary.
I do admit I respect the Winklevoss twins, they are not one trick ponies either with Gemini doing well.
Maybe the movie was all villains...

I enjoyed the first Social Network movie, and wonder how much truth there is in it; but this sounds like garbage.
I am not really a Zukerberg fan myself; who is?
But I have to give him credit for developing Facebook into company super successful company.
I love the concept of a social network, were I can share and connect, I just hate the centralization and Zuck or anyone else watching and controlling the data.
Whatsapp, running on XMPP was a great idea, provides many people across the globe an alternative to the horrible SMS system; but again the centralized Zuck watching is a no go for me.
Instagram is an undeniable success, not my cup of tea; people still try to argue with me that it is not just repackaged Facebook.
I love my Meta Quest 3, the first console I had bought in 15 years; but I would be happy to invest in a more open hardware and software alternative like what I hope the Steam Deckard will be.
My point being it does not seem Zuck is a one trick pony, or at least he has some good advisors; how does the saying go? "Do not hate the player, hate the game."

Yeah, but what laptop hardware is your son running Linux on?

Brickerbot sounds worse than Badbox, and way more malicious and harmful than Badbox. I assume if Badbox is smart it does not inhibit the use of the IoT device, so the user does not throw it away; nor does it overly user their internet connection so they got hunting for the problem. But I do not mind botnets, residential proxies, or so called malicious activity as I do not know of any time they have hurt me personally. Brickerbot just needs a bit more work, instead of bricking the IoT device, it purges any malware, patches the hole, and locks the door on its way out.

Actually, 'hallucinations' sounds worse because it implies a disconnect from reality, which is quite different from simply 'making sh*t up' or lying. LLMs can intentionally deceive, but hallucinations are an unfortunate side effect of their design. While creating deceitful responses would require a level of intelligence and intent, hallucinations stem from flawed processing and can reflect more erratic or damaged thinking. So, when you put it that way, 'hallucinations' doesn't really sound better at all. Calling it making sh*t up or lying gives them more credit than they deserve.

Unsympathetic start with the sob story of a Zach Yadegari who could not find two more points on the ACT to get into an Ivy league college. Nor could he afford to spend part of the $30 million a year his start-up earns on a proof read of his essay. Maybe he is better off without the Ivy leagues, maybe they are better off without him. But at least now he has a victim story to write when he reapplies next year.

The whole argument that the affluent have an advantage, so lets throw it out, is silly. Sorry the affluent do have an advantage that will help them long after the tutoring they got for the ACTs, their 4.0 GPA, and help writing the college essay. They will have better support through college, no matter where they go, and they will have better support after college in being successful. Their ability and the ability of those around them that help them leverage their affluent advantage will matter. If I am investing in a student to go through college, well then I want the biggest bang for my buck. So whether I am a for profit college, and parent, or a state, I want the best product from the college education. If the college essay helps reflect those best positioned to "market" themselves for success, well then like it or not it is a great metric. Instead of trying to throw out every measuring stick you do not like, or cut everyone off at the knees so we are all the same height; try finding a way to help the less affluent write a better essay, get supported through college, be better.

If the essay is a bad measuring stick for success, then sure throw it out; or refine the judgment of it. But I am not moved. If the college wants to use it to get around diversity restrictions, that is fine with me; it is up to the colleges. If the colleges admit a bunch of sob stories that flunk out or do not perform, the colleges that pick up the good students will start to rightly thrive. I was always told it worked two ways:

#1 You have two students, or two hundred with identical #1 in their graduating class, 4.0 GPAs, 36 on the ACT...the objective measurements are limited and say we have 200 equal students. The worry is there is something not measured. The hope is that an essay or a letter of recommendation could tease out that difference.

#2 You have a student with a 3.5 GPA, #2 in the graduating class, 32 on the ACT...but a great story of how there are only 10 people in their high school graduating class, they overcame cancer, and lost both parents last year...so the objective measurements may not accurately reflect what they are capable of.

I am optimistic that the destruction of IP laws would be a good thing.

The first issue is who IP is meant to benefit: the creator or the public? I will assert that the answer is the public. IP is an artificial protection meant to encourage creators in an effort to benefit the public; so it is meant to be mutually beneficial, but ultimately for the public.

The biggest industries have the weakest IP protections: food, clothing, housing. Now it might be slightly disingenuous to draw a parallels between food and say movies; everyone needs to eat, no one needs to watch movies. However, no one needs to eat at a Michelin Star restaurant, or wear designer clothing; and yet fine dinning and designer clothing make some people very wealthy. My assertion being that weak IP protection has not destroyed excessive profit making capabilities in those basic industries.

However, I foresee an alternative model for something like movies or drugs, if copyright and patents are abolished. Perhaps the Kickstarter model would be my hope. One where an artist pitches an idea for a movie, and backers, big and small, would contribute enough to sponsor the creation of a script, then perhaps a "first episode or scene" and so on. Known writers, directors, actors who ask for sponsorship would hopefully be able to demand more capital up front. The idea being that everyone is essentially paid for their work before hand, or at least the funds are in escrow. Drug production would be funded by those who believe in a lab, company, or group of people who might be able to produce the desired drug, and the resulting product patent free for all with the researchers already paid.

As a result Trademarks, or at least some way of verifying a creator's identity would still be very useful for the public. I want to know the clothing I am buying is say "Levi", and not a Chinese knock off that will fall apart quicker. I want to make sure I am sponsoring the writer that wrote my favorite book or movie script for the next work I want to see created.

I agree that "net worthy" is not an ideal value of a person.
However, I am not sure we have a better way to value people at the moment in the global market.
Fortunately, it seems we are mostly in a post scarcity world, where there should be enough shelter, air, water, food, and productive social things to do for everyone in the world.
Unfortunately, location, due to various factors, might limit some people in the world from enjoying all those benefits, but I would assert without provide much evidence sorry, that we are better off now then most of human history in providing for people's needs.
To further stir the pot I will also claim this is due to capitalism, or essentially valuing people by their earning power and monetary wealth.
But I do confess, it seems we can do better, and the "system" is not without corruption; but still better than other systems attempted.
All of this is a wonderful debate probably too much for this forum, but I would love to hear proposals for other ways of assessing the value of a person; if that is appropriate at all.

All that aside I was more motivated by the Taylor Swift vs Elon vs 10,000 builder assertion in your comment.

I am not much of a Taylor Swift fan, nor have I ever really gotten to excited about a performing artist of any form to the level that "Swifties" appear to adore Ms. Swift. However I do confess I have song along to a few of her songs with the radio and have enjoyed them. The "Swifties" obviously value Taylor, and their enjoyment perhaps enhances their lives and makes them more productive, all kinds of positive things. But I agree if she dies tomorrow not many will be worse off, a few days of mourning, and her songs will still play just as well on Spotify and a new singer or ten will fill the void. Nothing of value will really have been lost.

But I am not convinced the same with Elon. I understand hating Elon is popular these days, but I am not convinced of that either. However, it does seem that he is more than a one trick pony, and I believe it can be argued that had Elon died twenty years ago the world would be a different place. I cannot say the same for Taylor Swift. I have had the pleasure of driving a Tesla a few times, and love it, have not spent the money on one yet, but would love to own one. I am not sure on the numbers, but I am not sure I could point to another car company that sprung to life only in the 21st century and has had such success. The Ford, GM, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes....are all pushing 80 to 120 years old, kings, and Elon's Tesla disrupted the market in what I would say is a positive way. I have not found another EV I would want from one of those old school manufacturers yet.

Beyond Tesla, I want to address the assertion that Elon did not develop the Space X rocket. I recall seeing a video interviewing a rocket scientist or something, talking about Elon getting the books and actually learning and proposing designs for the rockets. Now without the 10,000 engineers I am sure he would not have gotten out of orbit. Not to mention Space X appears to be the leader vs Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and other commercial ventures.

I am sure there were other internet satellite systems out there before Starlink, but I had never heard much of them before.

I am an LLM fan, and I understand that Elon deserves a ton of credit for forming OpenAI. My understanding is that Google made the breakthrough with transformers in 2012, but OpenAI, a company that did not exist until 3 years later was created and beat Google and every one else to the punch.

Electric vehicles, commercial space travel, satellite internet, LLMs would probably all be a thing to some extent had Elon never existed. But I am not sure that they would be as good today or accessible in a world without him. I am not convinced that Elon is simply a rich guy making money off the backs of a bunch people actually doing work.

Now I am not convinced Elon is quite right on Bitcoin after hearing him talk on that matter. Plus it really seems questionable to have bought Twitter. Plus Sam Altman ran off with OpenAI and upset Elon. But you had to cite "10 thousand builders" dying to make an overwhelming disruption compared to Elon, not one builder, not ten, a hundred, or even a thousand, but ten thousand people's death is what it might take to disrupt the world vs one man, or maybe that comparison was aimed at the value of Taylor Swift...I am not sure ten thousand is high enough actually, we may find that ten thousand electricians, plumbers, carpenters leave the work force in a year due to retirement and death, and the world keeps progressing forward with another ten thousand or twenty thousand to replace them without missing a beat.

That is a lot of rambling, but I feel better now; thanks for reading this far.

Copyright is all about permission. The holder has at best given Youtube permission to stream the copyrighted data.

I am skeptical that Youtube serving up a stream is at all implicate permission in terms of copyright.

The Terms of Service are at minimum in place so that Youtube can point to them if the copyright holder comes complaining about something like Musi and Youtube can claim they have done their due diligence.

They signed over the right for Youtube to stream with certain monetary kickbacks I am sure. I agree that the copyright holder would probably target Youtube for weakly protecting their stream, or rather claim that Musi streams should count toward the monetary kick back they get in spite of the application accessing the stream

Of course this is Apple cutting off Musi from the App Store, not Google or the copyright holders taking any actions. I am sure Google may have something to do with this, perhaps pressure on Apple. Because in the end Musi cuts into Youtube profits two ways, one by potentially depriving them of the ability to display and ad and collect revenue on the stream, and two the stream costs money to provide in server and bandwidth with no income for their service from Musi or Musi users. Apple runs a tight clean ship, sometimes that is a perk of being in their ecosystem, sometimes it sucks. I am sure an Android APK of Musi is out there for free to download and use. If Musi really cared about their users they could release the swift source code and users could compile it for their iPhone, I do not think Apple blocks that...

I am generally opposed to copyright, and I could not care less as to the copyright holders being potentially deprived of revenue from Musi users choosing to use Music and bypass Youtube advertisement or subscription income. The copyright holders should not have released their content until receiving compensation, once released I do not support their claim for any control over the content. However, I do have a qualm with bypassing Youtube's revenue for serving up the stream; that is just not sustainable, if enough people did that then it for sure goes away as Google cannot afford to serve streams up for free forever. I would support Musi ripping the stream and serving the content up, as then Musi would have to pay for the bandwidth and servers and find income to do so. But that is on Youtube to secure their streams.

I would guess that Youtube has an agreement with the copyright holder and is not violating the copyright by streaming the data. But Musi does not have permission and is bypassing the Youtube interface, violating the copyright holder's claim to be able to control the streaming of the data?

From a practical stand point, Youtube sells ad space in its app that pays for the servers and compensates the copyright holder?

I think you bring up the prime issues of copyright violation on the output.
I have heard the argument that potentially the person prompting the AI is liable for the copyright violation? The AI is treated as a tool, like a word processor, you typed in something and got out copyrighted material, that is your fault?

I like the idea of treating the AI services such as ChatGPT legally as a black box. Inside the black box is a person that may or may not have a computer running some software, either way the person in the black box is liable for any copyright violations coming out of the black box.
If the person in the black box brings in a bunch of copyrighted material, whatever he does with the material in the black box is his business, whatever that person distributes out of the black box they are liable for the copyright violations.

If the person in the black box releases a tool, or his "notes" on the copyright material, the model in the case of the Large Language Model (LLM) AI, then the model would have to be evaluated for copyright infringement.
I believe the structure of the LLM positions it nicely for arguing the output is statistical facts, not simply a derivative work well within fair use tiny experts of copyrighted text at worst.

I would point to Google Scholar as perhaps the best example of this black box with the worst potential offender in terms of copyright.
Google Scholar has definitely been controversial, but still persists.
I would assume in the black box Google has pushed to the limits on reproduction of copyrighted material, I am sure dumping their database would easily contain the copyright material in entirety.
However, Google is careful to present the search results in a fair-use minimal form from what I have seen, skirting or complying with copyright law just enough.

I agree, copyright holders smell money and will try and pursue it. I hope that the law will see AI as more than derivative work, not a reproduction, and the product worthy of protection from such cash grabs in the same way that search engines have been protected.
But I would also toss out copyright and force creators to simply collect the money up front through a system like kickstarter where they pitch their idea, hopefully get enough pledge money to justify producing the idea, then release it into the world already paid for free to be used by all.

I am glad posts like this are now so weak they hide behind anonymous coward.

I have not been able to get a straight answer as to why anyone thinks AI training is copyright violation.
AI training relies on the same legal position as search engines rely on concerning copyright: Fair Use Doctrine, Public Access and Consent, Transformative Use.

However, drawing a parallel between the youth "learning" from material distributed by someone violating copyright and AI training would infer that the material that the AI were trained on was sourced from an entity that did not have the right to distribute the copyrighted material. I would say neither the youth nor the company training the AI are responsible for the copyright, since they are not doing the copying but instead at worst receiving a copy that was distributed without the permission of the copyright holder; in that case the distributor of the copyright material is the one responsible. In this case the "pirate" site. Of course using torrents and sharing data at the same time as downloading it may be more than a gray area.

But back to the parallel between the AI training and the youth training. If the youth answered a question on the internet they learned from some copyrighted material, I would say that falls under fair use. I have not seen anyone argue against someone making a statement about a movie or a book on the internet violating copyright; unless they were pasting large portions of the copyrighted material in the forum without permission. In the same way, AI, appears to be no different and following in a very established practice of learning and sharing.