It sounds like they're both sleazeballs. Do you have a point?

Expect hackers to install hidden background daemons who relay AI prompts from strangers over the Internet, at only half the per token price.

Just ask an AI to check the source for you.

(sorry, I'm kidding)

Well, Elon is a sleazeball because he can't be bothered to pay his share for the support of several children he fathered. That's a deadbeat right there.

Whereas Altman looks like some kid from That 70s show, minus the afro.... You just know he's up to something.

And whose motorcycle is this?

It's much, much worse than that. Amazon books since 2023 are often AI generated slop. Garbage through and through, maskerading as anything interesting. The company simply don't even do the simplest checks about what they accept in their inventory.

I never buy books post 2022 any more. The only exception is if I know the author. New authors? Sorry, you can blame the tech bros.

I do however still buy a lot of older books. I've seen the near future, and the information pollution is going to get worse before it gets better.

Thank you! This is why I still come back to slashdot, those little tidbits are worth putting up with the slop.

Now can someone please start a Unix PC emulator and compile a media player with libcaca on it, so we can watch Cobra on one of those puppies?

Now if only someone could use that standard with the US presidency!

Credit cards are not a good idea. The vast majority of the population would just misuse them, as can be seen in every country around the world. For those people, credit cards are a source of unnecessary debt.

Buyer protection can be implemented in law, no need for a credit card. Don't conflate the two ideas, the protection is merely a carrot to entice people onto credit cards.

With a cash system, provided it clearly displays the wallet's current balance, people are better able to judge when they've run out. Don't discount this problem, most people are not great at mental math. The best system is physical cash in this regard, as people can just check their pocket for the balance and manage their budget that way.

Note that physical cash also has benefits such as fungibility and anonymity, which a digital cash system doesn't have. One person's digital cash is not the same as another person's if the app chooses to control transactions, for example by checking the identities of buyer and seller.

6 percent is peanuts

I'm pretty suspicious myself about grown white men spending all day in the basement playing computer games...

Not in the context of copyright.

Copyright applies (amongst other things) because the copyrighted code was copied, processed, and represented in the model with the ability to output it verbatim. That's what those signatures in AI generated images are: verbatim copies of the source material. That's what those quirky little phrases are when you say "write my homework in the style of X".

So when you ask for some code to do X, it's a derivative of the open source code the foundation model trained on.

And by humans. That is what happens when you read something in a textbook or academic paper, including the sample code - be it copyrighted or not, and then implement something based on your knowledge, your understanding of what was read. That's not copyright infringement, whether human or machine.

Let's unpack that.

Reading and implementing an algorithm written in a textbook is copyrigh infringement. The textbook's content is copyrighted, and is not yours to simply copy verbatim. In the case of a textbook, the likelihood is that it is pseudo code, useless to copy directly, but it might not be, and you should confirm that the author allows it to be used outside class.

Reading and re-implementing open source code somewhere else is copyright infringement. There is no intention by the source project to teach or allow others to use the code, except via a specific license which lays out clear boundaries. The code is not pseudo code either.

Doing anything with the source code other than contributing some compatible code changes back to the actual open source project is highly likely to break the license and be infringing.

TL;DR. "I've seen the code, but it's just school, I can use it commercially" is not legal. AI or not AI.

You are conflating how an LLM works with how a ML model works. Two very different things. An ML model can be trained strictly on textbooks, academic papers, etc.

Sadly no. All supervised machine learning is a representation problem: how to parsimoniously remember the training data to within loss function tolerance. Modern supervised learning practice goes beyond the full interpolation limit (when the machine remembers everything perfectly) into the grokking/double descent regime. It means that the systems are deliberately trained to be able to describe the training data perfectly as a milestone.

You are not The One. You may be The One some day. But not now.

First, you must realize that There Is No Answer.

Ah, you're the PARENTS guy. I've seen your posts around. It's always somebody else's fault, not the US companies who move fast and break things. It's an extreme position to have, but in America at least you're entitled to it.

If you ever travel abroad, you might be shocked to find that people in other countries will vehemently disagree with you, and they don't necessarily care for the "its just free speech" defense.

Lol. A bunch of people decided to have a street party with a "no kings" theme, but now they're busy and don't want to take the time off to do another street party until whenever the oil price drops. Americans, eh?