Oh, so you're just a typical internet tough guy who makes assumptions about everything and everyone due to lack of actual real world experience. Get a life.

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)

You "noticed" that? I found it to be not well supported at all so it wasn't a consideration. How do you know what you're asserting here? It wasn't in evidence in what was presented for this discussion.

If you want to make an argument at least pick the idiot reporter that started following someone in their car. Because that is something we have first hand evidence for in this story.

Whether you do or don't, it's pretty obvious you support this because your "argument" boils down to semantics and obviously false separation of government and private companies (as if the government can't stop them, but then buys data from them). You're not worth spending any more time on as it's clear you've made your mind up.

I prefer the Martian bear.

Guess who else used to be a democrat?

Also from the article context it's pretty clear the flock employees are being trained to make false reports with specific phrases "might be armed" and "harassing" when neither are true. Just read what was said about people going around the preimeter of their property. It's laughably false with just the right amojnt of weasel words and possibility of interpertation to not be an obviously false report. I'm so tired of that style of weasel language. It's painfully obvious what's going on and one has to be lobotomized or a bootlicker to support it.

"Privacy in a public place" is not what's being asked for. The concept of "not having privacy in public" is completely and totally outdated and different now that you can be passivley tracked by a network of cameras and software in a way that used to take a warrant and significant amount of law enforcement officers. This now happens all the time, without any action on the part of law enforment or flock, just by the nature of the system. Again, without a warrant Without even resonable suspicion or probably cause. To be called up on demand for any reason and without a warrant. Do you understand the difference?

Forgetting he exists would be the best punishment.

Yes, Don-boy, I called you a fuckup. Tell the FCC to ban the internet.

There has been erosion over many years, but Trump is doing it's best to make it one right now.

Lucky for us he's an utter fuckup.

I'm more interested in the game than in the packaging.

"The left". You're tagging yourself as a media siloed, identity politics bring poisoned tool who's opinion doesn't matter in large part because it's not a persona opinion, it's what you've been told to repeat to stay in your preferred in-group. How pathetic.