That is pretty sick that you are looking forward to someone getting killed.
But if it does excite you so much, I suggest tracking Amazon / UPS / FedEx delivery truck fatalities instead. You'll get to enjoy hearing about a few fatalities every month.
That would be nice. But remember that the LLM-stupidity is currently all props up the US economy? And that the business numbers of all of them are utterly catastrophic?
AI isn't propping up the US economy. It is just keeping us out of a recession. If we had a recession it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would probably be pretty healthy in the long run.
We all know there is an A.I. bubble.
I doubt the AI bubble bursting is going to make you any happier. It will slow down the advancement of AI as much as the
By now, the Forbes 30 Under 30 list has become more than a little notorious for the amount of entrants who go on to be charged with fraud
Have there really been that many frauds? Gemini found 7 former winners who have been charged with fraud (5 found guilty with 2 cases ongoing) out of 420 members. When you include other issues like sex offenses and workplace bullying it goes up to 15. So around 1.5 - 3.5% of their winners either went on to do bad things or were already doing them without getting caught.
Is the rest of the enterprise business world really any better than that?
But "we fucked up but we employ enough people that it would be inconvenient if we went out of business" entitles a business to a bailout? If the bailout is not to preserve jobs, what is it for?
I don't think many if any of the bailouts of the past 20 years were done to save jobs at the companies being bailed out. They were to maintain our banking systems so other companies could continue running, or to protect industries that would have lost market share to foreign companies.
I'm not defending the behavior. I'm just pointing out that protecting jobs hasn't been a common justification for bailouts in the past.
That is nonsense. You can not "plagiate" without a copy right infringement.
After all you copy the work of the original author.
Just google: copyright alliance differences between copyright infringement and plagiarism. They give a good explanation for why why plagiarism and copyright infringement are completely different things (the main one being that one is a crime and the other isn't), but that they can overlap. That should hopefully clear up why very few plagiarism cases involve copyright infringement. Generally if something is actually copyright infringement, no one even bothers to call it plagiarism (since something much worse has happened).
And: in some countries it is a crime. E.g. Acquiring a PhD via plagiarism, is not a simple legal problem it is fraud, which is a hefty crime.
Some plagiarism is fraud, but that doesn't make plagiarism fraud. Just like sometimes firing a gun is murder, and sometimes it is target practice.
No US state considers plagiarism a crime (although if it rises to copyright infringement you can be charged with that). I did find that Montenegro is apparently the only country that actually considers plagiarism a crime. So I'll concede that 0.0075% of the world's population does live in a country where plagiarism is illegal.
The problem is when someone coaxes the model to output a significant portion of a work verbatim.
Yes they can read it in and process as much as they see fit, but if some prompt demonstrates an ability for it to reconstitute the original work, or something that from a human would be called an infringing knock off, what then?
If it really did easily spit out an entire novel just by being asked, that probably would be copyright infringement. If you have to painstakingly pull the content out of the LLM in small chunks and verify the output for accuracy, that isn't going to be copyright infringement. No potential buyer would ever take that route to read a book.
Oh cool, so if I posted the latest movie to youtube in one minute increments, I'm fine because it's the *viewer* choosing to watch them in the order of a film?
In court this would come down to intent and whether someone would reasonably choose to view the movie on your platform rather than buying the movie. If you string the one minute increments together making it easy for someone to view the whole movie with little effort, that probably will be copyright infringement. If someone has to spend their whole weekend stitching together the movie, finding the next one minute segment, remembering where they left off, etc. then it probably won't be considered copyright infringement. You obviously could have made it easier for the viewer, but didn't, which shows a lack of intent and shows the viewer probably won't choose to replace the movie watching experience with your service.
Fair use was developed for human use, not use by an entity that is retaining vast amounts of what it processes verbatim.
Fair use was developed to balance creators' rights while allowing the creation of new value for society. Giving too much control to copyright owners stifles innovation (all innovation builds on the work of others). Current use of copyrighted materials in LLM training is clearly fair use, which has been held up every time it has seen a court room so far (pirating content for commercial gain is different than the act of training the LLM with copyrighted work).
ChatGPT can reproduce about 40% of the Harry Potter series books verbatim.
I doubt you could make a convincing argument that someone would rather spend days trying to convince ChatGPT to reproduce the entire contents of a Harry Potter novel rather than buy the book on Amazon for $7. J.K. Rowling hasn't lost any book sales to OpenAI because of their product's ability to output significant portions of her book. The tests for fair use includes whether it has harmed the market for the original work, and this fails that test.
It's plagiarism and FAR outside fair use.
Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright law. Plagiarism is a moral violation, not a legal one.
What if an increase in temperature is actually beneficial for more people than the opposite?
That has been heavily researched, and it's not even close. Change itself is the problem; it would be catastrophic if the world was cooling at this rate too. If we only had 100 million people on the Earth and didn't have large settlements that had been invested in, we could adjust to any of these changes with minimal problems. But our society is too hyper-specialized to the current climate to handle the kind of rapid climate change we are already starting to feel (with inflation-adjusted climate-related disaster damage almost quadrupling over the past 20 years).
AI is the new hotness and AI data centres can't be powered by solar panels and windmills. So "Climate Change" is done.
Hopefully AI will help us design the nanobots that can continuously capture the heat and send it back into space.
It is very difficult for an honest person to foresee the level to which dishonest people will stoop to. That democrat president was guilty of wishful thinking and that's about all.
That's simply not true. He was lying. He knew the whole "I want to keep my health care plan" was an idiotic argument and didn't honor it with a fully truthful response. He knew if he did nothing, some people would lose their current insurance. And if he did something, some people would lose their current insurance. He knew he couldn't pause the world in place, and anyone who thought he could was an idiot not capable of understanding a truthful answer.
It should be noted that "not voting for this nonsense" isn't the same as not being a part of it - the people who thought "I don't like Kamala", and didn't vote for "sane person with whom I disagree with a lot" when the opposition was Trump are also at fault. Not opposing Trump is just pure insanity, he's speedrunning the US into 1930s Germany and making "idiocracy" look like a movie magically brought back from the future.
That's true. There is no difference between someone who voted for Trump and someone who didn't vote for Kamala from a moral and responsibility perspective. I think it is a tragedy that Kamala was the candidate for the Democratic party in 2024, but still knew it would have been an evil act to not vote for her.
It's tiring to hear people lament that their country is going to shit, but not propose to do anything about it. Boring. It's their country. It's their responsibility to fix it. One small step at a time.
What makes you think those people aren't doing anything about it? I donate and volunteer to political campaigns. I volunteer on boards in my local government. I have chosen a career where I work with executives in the largest non-for-profit health insurance company expand to take market share from for-profit health insurers, since I feel that is the best case scenario until we have a single payer option.
Unless you want everyone who is writing a few sentences of comments in a forum to also write a 5000 word essay of everything they think should be done in their country and everything they are personally doing to help, you need to get over the complaints you shared in your comment.
It's unfortunate for Americans that didn't vote for this nonsense have to live through the experience of knowing our country is now a villain on the world stage. There have always been things to be ashamed of, but until now it's always been easy to at least convince yourself the US does more good than bad. That is unfortunately the past now.
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.
