Serves him right for pissing on Aaron Swartz's grave. In fact, it's hardly justice.
Reddit, which filed confidentially for its IPO in December 2021, is planning to make its public filing in late February, launch its roadshow in early March, and complete the IPO by the end of March, two of the sources said.
Should be interesting to see people pick apart the filing. I think it's obvious why they left such a narrow window from reading the filing (which was 2 years ago, before the API change and all the backlash) to the actually offering. However, I don't think it will be short enough for them to not be held over the fire.
Just wait, they will be heavily moderating the discussion about the filing on their platform.
And sometimes a guy just needs a younger, tighter model.
I'm highly skeptical of the claims of tunnels under hospitals now, ever since it came to light that the "tunnels" under al-Aqsa hospital were in fact basement operating rooms, and the Israelis knew about them because they were built by Israeli contactors in the 1980's.
Hamas definitely use tunnels extensively, but it isn't clear that they are in any way connected to hospitals. Hamas have been inside hospitals (which makes some sense in that people need medical care), but it is not confirmed that they have conducted military operations there - they probably do to some extent, but an assumption is not confirmation. Meanwhile, Israel have a long history of stretching the truth to justify their own horrific attacks.
We have two terrorist organisations fighting against one another, with a whole bunch of civilians caught in between.
My issue is not about the loans though, it's about politicians fluffing up the financial health of their country to justify pilfering the tax coffers for themselves.
I'm aware that the UK paid off the US for WW2. However the UK's economy is vastly different to Ukraine's, both present and historically. The comparison is not reasonable.
Again though, I don't want aid to stop - I want more of it. I just want it done above board.
Sure, and as I say I'm fully in support of Ukraine. I don't want the support to stop - in fact I want more of it.
However, that doesn't mean the people of the countries that are giving should just ignore how it's being done, and what it might mean for the true financial health of their own country. It's no good if politicians are fiddling the books and using it to justify padding their pockets with taxpayer money.
Oh, so it’s like you create an email on the fly and it forwards it to your actual email
Exactly! Except it's not a regular forward, there isn't a send action, it's just moved into my email inbox.
when was the last time you used LinkedIn?
A month or two ago. I'm sure my data has been breached a few times. However, that doesn't exactly absolve them - I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "breaches" were in fact commercial agreements, when it comes to them.
LinkedIn have always been scummy, since their inception. Their original trick was to get you to provide your email login details, then they would log in to your email and spam all your contacts telling them to join. That was literally how they established themselves in the market. This was back in the MSN chat days.
At the bottom of the document, the Library of Congress approves all recommendations and adopts them as legal defenses against copyright claims. This is established law, not merely recommendations.
Thank you for the clarification.
Their use and nature are distinctly similar to that of a searchable database described in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust and Authors Guild v. Google (the legal strength is even greater here, since LLM outputs are creative, and do not provide ‘copied’ expressions as a matter of course - fringe cases not withstanding), and as such we have no reason to expect they’d view it differently in the case of an LLM. Training data is a utilitarian precursor to an expressive tool, as repeatedly affirmed as fair use in existing precedent.
This is indeed a complicated subject, and thank you again for your insight. These are very good example cases, because Google's searchable book database is exactly the same as the training databases LLM's use to develop their transform nodes.
The difference between the Authors Guild cases and this one, as I see it, is that Google and HathiTrust are acting to preserve information and art for future generations - there is an inherent benefit to society front and centre with their goals. With LLM's, the goal is to develop a commercial product. Yes, people can use it for free (right now) but ultimately they expect to sell access and profit from it. Also, no one else gets access to their training database, it is kept as some sort of trade secret.
for once, you are correct that this is not established law
Yay!
My perspective is that precedent supports training data for LLM’s as a fair use, and that strengthening copyright in the way proposed does not mitigate the harm being claimed by plaintiffs, and in fact increases harm to the greater public by gatekeeping access to automation tools and consolidating the benefits to already gigantic companies.
I wouldn't want to restrict or gatekeep access to art for genuine fair purpose uses. I agree with the Authors Guild rulings in those circumstances, I just disagree that LLM's are a similar enough circumstance that LLM's deserve the same exemption with how they're developed.
I really have to stress again that the issues and concerns being raised over AI cannot be sufficiently addressed through the use of copyright law.
I agree. Certainly, not copyright law as it exists right now, and even then there are so many aspects of the use of AI that fall well oustide the scope of copyright law.
Ultimately, my gripe is that a commercial business has used copyrighted work to develop a product without paying the rightsholders. Their product is their own unique creation, but the copyrighted work their product learned from was not. The training database they've used is not "research" because it is not scholarly; even if it were research, it is highly commercial in nature and as such does not warrant a fair use exemption.
I’ve down-voted your comments because they contain inaccuracies and could be misleading to others. You shouldn’t let my grading of your comments reflect my attitude towards you; i’m sure you’re a fine individual. Downvotes don’t mean anything on Lemmy anyway, i’m not sure ‘spitting in your face’ is a fair or accurate description, but I don’t want to invalidate your feelings, so I apologize for making you feel that way as that wasn’t my intent.
No worries, you've been very respectable. My feelings weren't particularly hurt, I just felt the need to call it out.
Personally, I'm against downvoting things merely because they are wrong. If someone says something that's wrong, it may well be a commonly held misconception, and downvoting it also demotes any correction that has been given, which means other people who hold the misconception are less likely to be corrected.
And that's beside the fact that I don't really think I'm completely wrong here :o)
That was exactly what you pivoted to in your comment here, i’m not sure why you’re now saying you don’t want to go down that avenue. I’m confused what you’re arguing at this point.
To be a little more specific, I don't want to go down the route of blaming AI itself for copyright infringement. That is to say, whether or not AI is bound by laws the way that humans are. I think it is only worthwhile considering whether the AI developer and/or the users are infringing copyright through their creation or use of AI. In particular, I think the legal or philosophical question of whether AI is affected by laws in the same way humans are is pointless when we're just talking about LLM's and not a true Artificial Intelligence.
The ‘3-d array’ does not contain copyrighted works. You can think of it as a large metadata file, describing how to construct language as analyzed through the training data. The nature and purpose of the ‘work’ is night-and-day different from the works being claimed, and ‘database’ is a clear misrepresentation (possibly even intentionally so) of what it is.
Yes absolutely, the LLM itself does not include copyrighted works. That's not what I'm arguing. The two issues I take are with the database of information the LLM is trained on. This database does contain copyrighted works, AI developers admit that it does, but they claim it is fair use research. I disagree with this claim, to use the terminology from one of your links their "research" is not "scholarly" - it is commercial product development.
The other issue is that the LLM can reproduce copyrighted work. While I agree with you in some sense that the user of the LLM is instructing it to infringe copyright, and thus the user is responsible, in another sense I think the developer is also responsible because they have given the tool the capability to do this. This is perhaps not a strong argument, particularly when the developers have made efforts to fix these "bugs" as they come to light.
However my most important point is that the developers have infringed copyright by building a training database full of copyrighted works, which the LLM was then trained on. The LLM itself isn't copyright infringement, but they infringed copyright to develop it.
The email address I give out doesn't exist, but whenever sends me an email to an address that doesn't exist it gets forwarded via the back-end of my email server to my actual email inbox. So I receive emails sent to those addresses, and the email I receive has the non-existent email address in the "To" field.
I end up sending email from this actual email, but I spoof the "From" email to the non-existent one. I've actually been planning on changing this, because it's possible for people to read the header information and determine my actual email address. What I'm thinking of doing is creating "noreply@mydomain.com" with a 0MB mailbox, and then using that for all outbound emails.
And yeah, like I say, after doing this for many years I generally get very little spam. There are a couple websites that apparently got hacked, their emails get spam, and things like my voter registration email (which is in the public domain) gets all sorts of crap. But LinkedIn was unique in that the spam started immediately. The only other website that this happened with was AdultFriendFinder.
Maybe the websites were compromised when I signed up on those occassions. My most recent LinkedIn account did not have this happen. However, it certainly fits the pattern of behaviour from LinkedIn, and furthermore that recent LinkedIn email also gets its share of spam these days, and it's spam that's related to the industry I work in. LinkedIn aren't supposed to be giving this email out, and yet people get it somehow.
Isn't that a crime?
Edit:
Ok, that's slightly different. I thought she was giving children fake vaccines without their knowledge. Still incredibly shitty, and it isn't clear but it sounds like she's still allowed to practice as a midwife, just not vaccinate people.