Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
In my experience, it’s likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive “AI bad! How dare you say AI good!” Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called “technology” there’s a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.
If they don’t then someone else will.
Meanwhile, publishers: “why is everyone using AI instead of viewing our sites themselves?”
Interestingly, I’m not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell “people don’t visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them.” (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).
Perhaps it’s some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don’t see any popup telling me that, but I’ve got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I’m not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.
Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.
Any reason to say that other than that it didn’t give the result you wanted?
The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.
That’s a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.
What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can’t just keep dissolving stuff forever.
And what would “total failure” look like? It’s a mountain, it’s not going to just collapse into goo.
And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can’t simply try again.
And no bomb is irresistible.
I don’t see what distinction you’re trying to draw here. It previously had trouble generating full glasses of wine, they made some changes, now it can. As a result, AIs are capable of generating an image of a full wine glass.
This is just another goalpost that’s been blown past, like the “AI will never be able to draw hands correctly” thing that was so popular back in the day. Now AIs are quite good at drawing hands, and so new “but they can’t do X!” Standards have been invented. I see no fundamental reason why any of those standards won’t ultimately be surpassed.
The judge writes that the Authors told him that LLMs memorized the content and could recite it. He then said “for purposes of argument I’ll assume that’s true,” and even despite that he went ahead and ruled that LLM training does not violate copyright.
It was perhaps a bit daring of Anthropic not to contest what the Authors claimed in that case, but as it turns out the result is an even stronger ruling. The judge gave the Authors every benefit of the doubt and still found that they had no case when it came to training.
That part is not what this preliminary jugement is about. The torrenting part is going to go to an actual trial. This part was about the Authors’ claim that the act of training AI itself violated copyright, and this is what the judge has found to be incorrect.
Again, you should read the ruling. The judge explicitly addresses this. The Authors claim that this is how LLMs work, and the judge says “okay, let’s assume that their claim is true.”
Fourth, each fully trained LLM itself retained “compressed” copies of the works it had trained upon, or so Authors contend and this order takes for granted.
Even on that basis he still finds that it’s not violating copyright to train an LLM.
And I don’t think the Authors’ claim would hold up if challenged, for that matter. Anthropic chose not to challenge it because it didn’t make a difference to their case, but in actuality an LLM doesn’t store the training data verbatim within itself. It’s physically impossible to compress text that much.
Is it this?
First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16).
That’s the judge addressing an argument that the Authors made. If anyone made a “false equivalence” here it’s the plaintiffs, the judge is simply saying “okay, let’s assume their claim is true.” As is the usual case for a preliminary judgment like this.
Did you read the actual order? The detailed conclusions begin on page 9. What specific bits did he get wrong?
Well, I’m talking about the reality of the law. The judge equated training with learning and stated that there is nothing in copyright that can prohibit it. Go ahead and read the judge’s ruling, it’s on display at the article linked. His conclusions start on page 9.
No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.