Sorry, I missed the Australia part. Australia's Part. 10.7 isn't that different for the most part. It does contain a "recklessness" clause in addition to direct intent (unlike the US), but they define recklessness as requiring the accused to have a "subjective awareness" of "substantial" and "unjustifiable" risk of the specific charged event in question occurring, and choosing to take them anyway. This is defined as distinct from negligence, which is based on the much lower "reasonable person would recognize the risk" standard. Under recklessness (the one that can be charged in Australia), OpenAI employees wouldn't have had to 100% intend to hack HuggingFace, but they had to have thought there was a high chance that their models would choose to hack HuggingFace when they gave them a benchmark to complete. No prosecutor is even going to try on that one, esp. given that the models also attacked OpenAI itself and were wreaking all sorts of havoc against OpenAI's own internal processes.

Once again, though: civil liability is ample remedy. Nobody thought "there's a good chance it'll hack HuggingFace if we tell them to do a benchmark in a sandbox", but you shouldn't have any trouble at all showing that these companies full of people from the Rationalist movement (practically an AI-apocalyptic cult) think that their models are dangerous in general, yet nonetheless were negligent in terms of keeping them from escaping (outright no monitoring!) or properly monitoring their training to ensure that they weren't training them to cheat, so that they wouldn't try in the first place.

(And I feel the need to reiterate that US cybercrime law, the one in question for most of the hacking cases, has no standalone recklessness standard)

And then people get angry about being mislead and assume everything is an attempt to mislead and that technology in a given field isn't advancing, wherein reality it continues to advance in the background. But rarely in any of the flashy "New Neato Gamechanger Breakthrough!" ways that attract tech journalists. It advances by ideas that, through long, hard slogs, often behind closed doors inside companies, slowly mature from "this kinda works" to "we can actually do this at scale".

Why even bother though. This is going to be yet another thread of people who watched too much CSI trying to argue law by analogy and trying to apply things from one piece of law to another where they do not apply, rather than what actual US cybercrime statutes actually say. *sigh*

There is no criminal negligence under CFAA. Sorry.

People need to stop watching so many bad legal dramas. "Criminal negligence" isn't a standalone charge, or something you can just append into other statutes; it must already exist in them. Where it does, they're generally those related to bodily harm. Not cybercrime. There is no such thing as "negligent hacking". Hacking charges require mens rea. The statute explicitly spells out "intentionally", "deliberately", etc over and over.

The remedy is civil, not criminal. And just to preempt this too: civil does not mean "mild". Civil law absolutely can kill companies, even large ones, if they damage they've done is big enough. And even when the cost is not sufficient on its own, courts allow juries to consider net worth of the defendant so that the penalty has sufficient sting to discourage the defendant and others from repeating said conduct.

Yeah, but that was always a dumb idea, and it was always a minority position. Also we've know exactly why we can't have solar panels like that since [before] former thin film printed panel darling Nanosolar closed their doors in 2013: Microcracks develop in the protective plastic layers on thin film flexible solar panels and let in moisture which spoils the panel. You can make a relatively long-lived plastic solar panel if you don't want it to flex much, but it doesn't save much money in the end so that's done only for portable uses where glass is simply unsuitable.

You can make very cheap thin film solar panels. They just don't last long enough to be useful.

You're going to have to at least buy me dinner and sweet talk me first. Or won't you?

I'm keeping more track as I age, not less. Perhaps your capabilities have diminished further than mine? I was pretty young when I signed up, it would be surprising if you were younger than I am.

Every competent major company has done it already, but they didn't do it because quantum computing was here, they did it because it might come someday and they wanted cryptosystems which were proof against the potential vulnerability.

Yes, from people selling shit to suckers. But since there are no practical quantum computers, there are no practical quantum computer-based attacks on any cryptosystems. There is only the fear that someone will someday discover a way to make a practical quantum computer, which is a reasonable fear considering that it's not expensive to shift to using other encryption methods so long as you aren't in a hurry about it.

It isn't specifically because both are taking something some media dildos spun dumb headlines about and basing dissatisfaction on those dumb headlines. But one would have to be capable of insight to understand the connection, so I'm not surprised a coward failed there.

This was true of some pilot installations, but accelerated aging of modern perovskite panels suggest much closer to silicon, and some have passed the same IEC standards as silicon panels.

It's a great unanswerable whether not having copyright would have been more of a boon to creators of software, and another whether that would have been more of a boon to users as more software would be created for them. But we do have numerous relevant examples of how copyright has in fact benefited users, and I think Linux is the obvious primary example. Major contributors to Linux told us in so many words that they chose to contribute to it because of its license which essentially made returning contributions to the community mandatory.* The GPL is powered by copyright. Without any copyright law, you effectively have the BSD license less attribution. QED, copyright can do good things, even if only because it was subverted with copyleft.

Yeah, that's what copyright does, there's no arguing against that. I'm sympathetic to the idea that copyright shouldn't exist, and personally generally argue that the term should be much shorter — and also probably shorter for software than for some other types of creations. But that's another discussion, I think.

* Can't really do that with the law AFAIK, GPL comes closest, it's a whole other discussion there again.

To be clear: none of this is the reason why lead has been winning over tin. Unfortunately, the Sn+2 is extremely prone to oxidizing to Sn+4 even under trace oxygen or moisture contamination, and tin perovskites are extremely vulnerable to crystal defects, while lead perovskites aren't. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Um, have you looked at a graph of PV price trends?

And remember: that vertical axis is a logarithmic scale.

As for "the price of a lollypop per square meter", that's literally the first time I've ever heard that phrase, but okay, I'll bite. If by "lollipop" you mean retail prices for one of those big lollies, they're like $11 on Amazon on average. PV wafers are about $0,045/W. At a typical ~250W/m, that's like.... $11. Yes, a square meter of PV wafers is about the cost of a lollipop! Yes, integrating them into whatever panels or other solar device increases cost over the raw wafers, but we very much are "on the order of lollies".

Whoops, I forgot to include something on clean room engineering because I got caught up in ranting about how LLMs aren't thinking, and this aspect is really important to the discussion IMO and I wanted to bring it up even while I was writing my first paragraph.

The other argument to be made about LLMs not washing away copyright is that even if they were considered to be thinking, that is arguably not enough to make what they do legal. Even for humans we have the concept of taint, for which we invented clean room engineering as a circumvention strategy. But the LLM doesn't have any separation, as the model is a direct product of the input data.

It's a complicated issue for sure. The underlying social reason why it should be this way is that copyright is (allegedly) for the purpose of protecting human effort in order to induce additional creations. Only if you work from the standpoint of it being only for protecting revenues (whether profit, tax, or both) does it even make sense to give copyright to AI creations.

The reason why it arguably is a problem, though I think it is critical to say that this really hasn't been decided in court anywhere from what I can tell, is a combination of two things: first, the definition of a derivative work is loose and open to subjective interpretation, and second that's just how the law is written. An LLM is software and you aren't, even if your argument is that they work the same... which they don't.

That last point is relevant to the argument as well. That's the technical reason why they shouldn't be the same. LLMs don't have ideas or concepts. They have only tokens and statistical relationships between them. The model records ways in which a token representing a thing is related to tokens representing other things, but there's no mind there to have a concept of the thing. I'm deliberately avoiding providing any example here to make a point — any thing is equally inscrutable to the same LLM producing a pronouncement about it.

That is relevant to this question because while we are capable of learning things about things because we have the concept of things, the LLM does not have understanding of any concepts because understanding is not a thing which it does, in fact it has nothing to do understanding with. The LLM is producing a facsimile of the very least and last part of the thinking process, but it's doing it with a combination of statistics and random numbers and that's it. That's why it can be equally confident about two sets of diametrically opposed results produced from the same query — it's specifically because there's nothing behind the facade.

Therefore, since the AI is not translating the ideas represented by tokens into ideas and concepts (since those are fundamentally not things an LLM can apprehend) at no point is it turning input into learning. "Training" is asserted to be the best word we have for what we are doing, but that's really not a thing because the LLM is the weights and the code that produces the chains of output. There's nothing else there! We have a mind with consciousness and ideas actually mean things to us, and we react to those meanings and they affect our output — when this isn't true, we have a word for that, and it is "psychopath".

Are you also the guy still crying about the alleged global cooling scam? Forgive my skepticism regarding your having a brain.