If they don't do anything novel, then why would a mathematician use it for this type of paper in the first place? Hmm.

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)

Understood, and yeah single tasking seems like a good workaround given the situation. Or switching to an LLM with a larger context window, if possible/practical. I was able to get about 7X more context window "runway" using the AST approach, but it's a relatively small code base to begin with.

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)

Sounds like you're running up against the context window of whatever LLM you're using. Try converting your code to a minified abstract syntax tree first and pass that to your LLM, and ask it what full text it needs in addition to that. It should stay within the context window much better that way.

So just to be clear here, are you saying that if I follow a person around as he goes about his day in the public sphere, then I am "actively stalking and harassing" and that is not to be allowed, but that if I set up an array of cameras which films that person as he goes about his day in the public sphere, then I am "passively filming" and that is entirely okay?

"You do realize journalists have no rights beyond what a normal citizen has?"

Likewise, you do realize that Flock and Axon have no rights beyond what normal citizens have?

Not running windows.

I opened my browser 3 months ago.

There's probably some sort of a price break they're getting for listing it public. Typically dealership using forms of fraud though.

All these models have significant physical requirements and the likelihood they all have a physical resource that could be impacted by the same event is definitely non-zero.

The issue should be tracked down to determine if they all had some similar resource contention issue.

Purchasing an American car is absolutely the stupidest thing anyone can do today when buying a vehicle.

I think this might be the first time I've seen a Slashdot comment with a non-alphanumeric character that displayed properly. Nicely done, AC!

So you used a version that didn't suffer from the issues while a substantial amount of their user base were affected and therefor all is right in the world?

Useless. You. And Sonos.

Customer centric? What's more customer centric than disabling speakers people bought in the past?

Never Sonos.