Just google: copyright alliance differences between copyright infringement and plagiarism. They give a good explanation for why why plagiarism and copyright infringement are completely different things (the main one being that one is a crime and the other isn't), but that they can overlap. That should hopefully clear up why very few plagiarism cases involve copyright infringement. Generally if something is actually copyright infringement, no one even bothers to call it plagiarism (since something much worse has happened).

Some plagiarism is fraud, but that doesn't make plagiarism fraud. Just like sometimes firing a gun is murder, and sometimes it is target practice.

No US state considers plagiarism a crime (although if it rises to copyright infringement you can be charged with that). I did find that Montenegro is apparently the only country that actually considers plagiarism a crime. So I'll concede that 0.0075% of the world's population does live in a country where plagiarism is illegal.

If it really did easily spit out an entire novel just by being asked, that probably would be copyright infringement. If you have to painstakingly pull the content out of the LLM in small chunks and verify the output for accuracy, that isn't going to be copyright infringement. No potential buyer would ever take that route to read a book.

In court this would come down to intent and whether someone would reasonably choose to view the movie on your platform rather than buying the movie. If you string the one minute increments together making it easy for someone to view the whole movie with little effort, that probably will be copyright infringement. If someone has to spend their whole weekend stitching together the movie, finding the next one minute segment, remembering where they left off, etc. then it probably won't be considered copyright infringement. You obviously could have made it easier for the viewer, but didn't, which shows a lack of intent and shows the viewer probably won't choose to replace the movie watching experience with your service.

Fair use was developed to balance creators' rights while allowing the creation of new value for society. Giving too much control to copyright owners stifles innovation (all innovation builds on the work of others). Current use of copyrighted materials in LLM training is clearly fair use, which has been held up every time it has seen a court room so far (pirating content for commercial gain is different than the act of training the LLM with copyrighted work).

I doubt you could make a convincing argument that someone would rather spend days trying to convince ChatGPT to reproduce the entire contents of a Harry Potter novel rather than buy the book on Amazon for $7. J.K. Rowling hasn't lost any book sales to OpenAI because of their product's ability to output significant portions of her book. The tests for fair use includes whether it has harmed the market for the original work, and this fails that test.

Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright law. Plagiarism is a moral violation, not a legal one.

That has been heavily researched, and it's not even close. Change itself is the problem; it would be catastrophic if the world was cooling at this rate too. If we only had 100 million people on the Earth and didn't have large settlements that had been invested in, we could adjust to any of these changes with minimal problems. But our society is too hyper-specialized to the current climate to handle the kind of rapid climate change we are already starting to feel (with inflation-adjusted climate-related disaster damage almost quadrupling over the past 20 years).

Hopefully AI will help us design the nanobots that can continuously capture the heat and send it back into space.

That's simply not true. He was lying. He knew the whole "I want to keep my health care plan" was an idiotic argument and didn't honor it with a fully truthful response. He knew if he did nothing, some people would lose their current insurance. And if he did something, some people would lose their current insurance. He knew he couldn't pause the world in place, and anyone who thought he could was an idiot not capable of understanding a truthful answer.

That's true. There is no difference between someone who voted for Trump and someone who didn't vote for Kamala from a moral and responsibility perspective. I think it is a tragedy that Kamala was the candidate for the Democratic party in 2024, but still knew it would have been an evil act to not vote for her.

What makes you think those people aren't doing anything about it? I donate and volunteer to political campaigns. I volunteer on boards in my local government. I have chosen a career where I work with executives in the largest non-for-profit health insurance company expand to take market share from for-profit health insurers, since I feel that is the best case scenario until we have a single payer option.

Unless you want everyone who is writing a few sentences of comments in a forum to also write a 5000 word essay of everything they think should be done in their country and everything they are personally doing to help, you need to get over the complaints you shared in your comment.

It's unfortunate for Americans that didn't vote for this nonsense have to live through the experience of knowing our country is now a villain on the world stage. There have always been things to be ashamed of, but until now it's always been easy to at least convince yourself the US does more good than bad. That is unfortunately the past now.

The professor's core argument is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. He argues (correctly) that we shouldn't assume digital computation is sufficient for consciousness. But then he repeatedly slides into claiming it probably isn't sufficient, which is a much stronger position he never actually defends.

His evidence shows brains are more complex than simple computational models. But "brains do more than Turing computation" doesn't prove "consciousness requires that extra stuff." He's essentially arguing that we don't know computation is sufficient, therefore it probably isn't. That's not a defensible claim.

It doesn't matter what your credit score is if you don't pay back your card on time every month. That is a strong recent indicator that there is a problem that your past history doesn't accurately reflect.

If you are actually responsible with your credit cards, who cares if the interest is 25000%? You'll never be charged it anyway. That isn't a reason for society to allow companies to prey on the less fortunate, but anyone with strong credit shouldn't care what their credit card interest rates are.

Not true. I got a 24% interest used car loan when I was in my early 20s with no credit history. I refinanced it after a year (I had credit history then) to somewhere around 10%, and the loan for my next car was closer to 3-4%.

While I would like there to be a better way than what I went through (and I now know there is, but didn't back then), it still can work to get temporary large interest loans for very specific reasons. Keeping a 20+% interest loan for years is a recipe for disaster though.

Not anymore. Now it is about how can he line his pockets. This is just a ploy to get the finance industry to donate more to his "campaign."

That problem, in isolation, is easily solved by increasing tax revenue. The real problem would be if there wasn't enough wealth in the country to tax. The US is #1 in total wealth and #1 in total wealth per capita among the top 75 highest population countries (small countries should be compared with individual US states or even cities). The US is #39 in external debt to GDP ratio and #91 in external debt to wealth ratio. The US is just fine.

Posturing about the US federal debt level is just politics. The portion held by foreigners is only 5.5% of the US net worth, and the portion held internally can be solved with wealth transfer. We just choose not to fix it, but could do it at any time there was actually enough political will to do it.

This study seemed to easily show at least part of why the federal debt level isn't a problem, but those reading it didn't like that answer so they claim the results are confusing (and called the findings "premature").