So OpenAI "accidentally" lets their internal agents under test hack some third parties, and not to be out done Anthropic rushes out to say ours too!

I mean nothing says invest-able business like 'hi our products are dangerous and despite positioning ourselves as a leading tech firms we can't competently implement internet access controls'

We really are living in the dumbest universe

The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

"Needs more Excel training" should not be the answer to any problem.

AI "anything" is worse than human equivalent, AI has no values. It's faster, so what? It's easy to go fast when it can be wrong.

The overwhelming majority of features that go into making a human mind what it is do NOT have analogs in LLMs nor do AI companies have any interest in making that happen. Instead, AI is a billionaires' rush to own the one interesting thing that has recently developed. Claiming that AI is about to produce super-human intelligence is really a monstrous insult to everyone's intelligence, it is taking a huge shit on our integrity.

Worse than that, sociopaths are people lacking important aspects of what makes human minds what they are and what makes them worth emulating. Every LLM ever is a worse sociopath than has ever existed in human form. LLMs, by design, lack EVERY redeeming feature of human thought. This is why they appeal to billionaires, they can be a tool to exploit people far better than any sociopath ever could. AI companies do not view this as a liability, it is a feature.

Modern software increasingly does not depend on traditional compilers. How terrified will you be when there is no compiler at all?

"This is the tool you rely on to make your code."

Tell that to Python users. Do not worry though, there aren't many of those!

"...then that's just being naive."

Naive is thinking this problem hasn't existed for decades. It's been well understood before you even went to school. It's NOT an AI issue.

It is intuitively NOT copyright infringement because when a human does exactly the same it is not. The law was clearly intended for it not to be.

"So if LLM-generated code retains GPL copyright..."

LLM-generated code would be LLM-generated, it may be governed by copyright but it would not because any copyright were "retained". The code is newly generated, by definition.

Your assertion that "a lot of the training data is probably GPL code" doesn't mean anything. What would matter is if there is theft of copyrighted work. And LLMs may be able to use copyrighted works for training, just like humans can. It would seem to be fair use for LLMs if it is fair use for humans. This has not been tested, although one could not tell that by /. comments.

Existing law presumes there is a big difference between learning and copying. With AI that has become different and the law is not equipped to deal with it.

"...if the LLM stole too much from its training data..."too much" may not be a lot..."

Any amount of stealing is too much, but LLMs cannot and do not steal in and of themselves even if they are tasked to steal. LLMs learn and then apply that learning, just as humans do. When humans do that, it is not called stealing. It is called ownership of what you've learned.

Current law is simply inadequate, there will no longer be a distinction between what is learned and what is copied when they can be essentially the same. Simply avoiding AI-generated code may not be enough, relying on copyright itself becomes a problem when copyright is no longer helpful.

dude just hurl the abuse back at them. It is way more fun

He probably sees perfectly clearly unlike you, who can't see thru the constant tears.

What a sad sack

You sounds like an obese bitch

That is certainly true. However I also don't think this lawsuit should be entertained. Nothing here rises to the level real harassment, except in the head of this former employer, if even there as it just as like they are suing some with deep pockets because they can.

Cases like this need to be tossed, quickly and loudly to cut the bullshit.

at common law it was 'the putting in of fear'

So are you are precious snow flake afraid of backed goods? This is stupid, this Olympic level vitcimhood.

Notice how the Kamala cuckolds are the ones crying!

You and Fred and Losers, that is why you're both so upset. You know you'd be on the pie end of things because you're always on the pie end of things arn't you. Fucking cucks
 

FUCK YOU TO Fred!

There are to of sales jobs where there literally is nothing separating the good performers from the great ones on than hustle. How many calls did you make. How much time did you spend checking back with people who said "I'll think about it."

You frequently have sales teams where there is nobody that is performing badly. You might very well have a case where everyone had a 500k in revenue goal and all of them hit. Still someone will have done 650k and someone will have done 515k. There will still be a top and bottom. Making it a little 'good natured' internal competition is perfectly fine!

Unless you're a FUCKING KAREN