NYT is making copyright a weapon against creative freedom. With each new work they publish, they reduce our freedom to create. Copyrights last for too long, and have been changed from protecting expression to protecting abstractions. The AFC (abstraction filtration comparison) test and the "total concept and feel" interpretations basically make it impossible to do due diligence, nobody can ensure they don't infringe any abstract idea in all the published works. The law is biased against new creatives and public domain. In fact copyright is extremely outdated, we prefer cooperation, sharing, and doing things together now, and that doesn't work when everyone holds to their royalties like NYT. And focusing on AI infringement is far fetched, AI is by design not a replication machine, copying is a million times easier to achieve already. AI is used for novel outputs.

They were ordered to keep logs of API calls which were not subject to logging prior to this decision. The web interface has different logging.

If you punch someone in the noise - you get part of the copyrights. It's already both a work of nature and man!

Let BBC hold copyright over their expression while Perplexity serves an analysis from multiple sources, which is not identical to any one of them and provides an transformative output.

The market for people who want to read random 42% snippets of Harry Potter will collapse.

LLaMA might not have the mitigations, but OpenAI, Anthropic and Google filter the outputs to ensure no regurgitation. It's not a problem on the output unless we count abstractions as infringement.

It's been only a short while, but good by Slack MCP.

> creators, whether they’re indie artists or billion dollar studios, deserve compensation when their work is harvested as fuel for someone else’s generative model.

Ok, let's assume this idea. Who should pay?

- model developers? they are a cost center
- model hosts? they make cents a million tokens, serving AI is commoditized, there is little profit in it
- users who generate their own ideas? how can you tax Mary's enjoyment of AI abstract art, or Jonny's passion for anime girls?

As long as they don't replicate the original images they have no basis to forbid training. If they do, it means copyright does not protect specific expression anymore, but instead protects abstractions and styles. That would be a disaster for creativity.

The entry-level unemployment spike correlates almost perfectly with Trump taking office in January 2025, and companies typically freeze non-essential hiring when policy uncertainty peaks.

But it is the cheapest solution. It doesn't cost anything to raise grades, they don't even have to provide remedial education. /s

Just like bad news spread wider than good news, movies about "bad AI" would get more views than Google's videos. It's an unfortunate trait of human preferences.

I find this vibe-coding process pretty exhausting. It generates so fast it is hard to keep up, but you can't disengage from it or it runs into problems.

My experience with agentic flows (vibe coding) is like yours. What is really needed is (1) having the project and the plan documented (2) generating sufficient tests. They put guardrails around the agent. You also have to manage its context carefully, the less useless stuff in it the better. If regular coding is like walking, slow and steady, vibe coding is like surfing. You got to give up control, so compensate by setting up constraints.

I am planning a MCP server for spaced repetition where the LLM has a tool to generate cards, and a tool to retrieve the next cards that are up for review. The tool calls will be orchestrated by the LLM itself, and the MCP server also coded with AI. Clade Desktop is all you need.