For all they keep doing, the one thing they can't seem to do is make a checkbox to stop being harassed about updates. Apparently there is no way to do to this. It's much too complicated for them to figure out.

Perhaps they should put out a notice asking if anyone has the skills to create the checkbox and make it work.

Considerably more difficult than you imagine. Between them, they have almost 70 command-line options or flags. Taking into account that many of those behave differently depending on the presence or absence of other flags, there's a couple hundred different code paths. Then you need to handle directories, files, sparse files, sym- and hard-links, on and across different filesystems, not to mention the various file-like things scattered around (pipes, streams, etc.)

It's not rocket science, but neither is it trivial.

We knew that. But now we have proof.

Will anything happen because of that? Nah, I don't think so. A few token gestures maybe. A friendly mail to everyone saying to write better reasons, followed up by an informal mail that tells them to ignore the previous one.

This isn't a mistake. It's intentional. The more arbitrary and uncontrolled the police can act, the more it is feared, the more it is a tool for oppression and not a part of civil society, the more likely the cops will stand on the side of the powerful when there are protests or uprisings against the increasing oppression and economic divide.

Ah, you're one of the people who thinks that your neurons are gateways to the unphysical realm? Neurons in general, or the pineal in particular?

Also, this has nothing to do with my post. Did you reply to the wrong one?

If true, that seems to foreclose this claim.

The timing for it being from the training data indeed seems pretty tight. There is still the option of someone reading the chat transcript and giving the model a little prompting in the right direction.

It's not particularly surprising. The guy says the AI companies have no respect for the scientific community. That's no surprise. People outside the scientific community, especially private industry, have no respect for it.

Anybody academic who's ever worked with a company comes out knowing it's dealing with the devil. They don't share or even understand academic norms. And if they're paying you they're probably legally in the right too.

Now, swiping your customers' private data is a different thing, if it happened. That sounds super expensive to prove though.

They may lose their PhD

Lol what?

You can just copy and paste your existing code into it if you want. The amount of access you give it determines the convenience and scope of what it can do. Naturally most people opt for as much as possible and are shocked when something goes wrong.

LLMs cannot do original work. No, do not dispute that it.

There's the scientific rigour.

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)

It matters quite a lot if someone sues you. Or if a propagandized public and their leaders get into a war over it.

The US Supreme Court, and supreme courts in general, are not "triggered." You appeal to them to hear your case. They may do so if they feel that your case is somehow relevant to wider issues.

The US Supreme Court might hear this case if they wanted to interpret the constitution in such a way as to set upper limits placed on fines, or wished to issue a judgement on the idea that fraud is still fraud if nobody gets hurt.

Yeah, that's a good example. Also "the actual thinking process as opposed to the correlational hallucinations that constitute all LLM 'thought'."

Two different sides of the same hubris.

A little tutorial if you know a little bit of Python:

https://numpy.org/numpy-tutori...

And a book with more detail if you're more into math:

https://www.deeplearningbook.o...

Everything else is pretty much scaling up and introducing some restrictions on the basic model.