FaceDeer

Most cultures don’t immediately leap to “better kill everyone else in the train so I can take their stuff.”

We should split up to explore more efficiently!

Ohh, this small creature in the underbrush looks adorable! I’m going to pick it up.

Isekai harems are “all of the above.”

Probably quite quickly, if the train was traveling at any significant speed when all of a sudden it had no tracks under it.

Cloaks are actually quite historical, they’re very easy to make and useful in a variety of conditions.

When you delve into the details of what those bullet points actually entailed, they were all far far worse in medieval times.

I suppose Biden could have him officially assassinated. That’s legal now.

Yup. Fortunately unsubscribing from politics subreddits is generally advisable whether one has been banned from them or not.

Being slightly wrong means more of an endorphin rush when people realize they can pounce on the flaw they’ve spotted, I guess.

Don’t sweat downvotes, they’re especially meaningless on the Fediverse. I happen to like a number of applications for AI technology and cryptocurrency, so I’ve certainly collected quite a few of those and I’m still doing okay. :)

There was a politics subreddit I was on that had a “downvoting is not allowed” rule. There’s literally no way to tell who’s downvoting on Reddit, or even if downvoting is happening if it’s not enough to go below 0 or trigger the “controversial” indicator.

I got permabanned from that subreddit when someone who’d said something offensive asked “why am I being downvoted???” And I tried to explain to them why that was the case. No trial, one million years dungeon, all modmail ignored. I guess they don’t get to enforce that rule often and so leapt at the opportunity to find an excuse.

Downvotes for not getting it right, I presume.

Which makes me concerned that the “Hole for Pepnis” answer has so many upvotes.

Those holes look open to me.

There actually isn’t a downside to de-duplicating data sets, overfitting is simply a flaw. Generative models aren’t supposed to “memorize” stuff - if you really want a copy of an existing picture there are far easier and more reliable ways to accomplish that than giant GPU server farms. These models don’t derive any benefit from drilling on the same subset of data over and over. It makes them less creative.

I want to normalize the notion that copyright isn’t an all-powerful fundamental law of physics like so many people seem to assume these days, and if I can get big companies like Meta to throw their resources behind me in that argument then all the better.

Remember when piracy communities thought that the media companies were wrong to sue switch manufacturers because of that?

It baffles me that there’s such an anti-AI sentiment going around that it would cause even folks here to go “you know, maybe those litigious copyright cartels had the right idea after all.”

We should be cheering that we’ve got Meta on the side of fair use for once.

look up sample recover attacks.

Look up “overfitting.” It’s a flaw in generative AI training that modern AI trainers have done a great deal to resolve, and even in the cases of overfitting it’s not all of the training data that gets “memorized.” Only the stuff that got hammered into the AI thousands of times in error.

Training an AI does not involve copying anything so why would you think that fair use is even a factor here? It’s outside of copyright altogether.

Downloading pirated books to your computer does involve copyright violation, sure, but it’s a violation by the uploader. And look at what community we’re in, are we going to get all high and mighty about that?

What did I say that implied that? I’m pointing out a contradiction in kilgore’s comment, I’m not adding anything of my own here.

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.

Indeed. I’m a big supporter of IA’s mission, and I’m a big supporter of piracy (copyright has gone insane over the years), but this outcome was obvious from the moment IA did this and it was a mistake for them to fight this fight. They should focus on preservation. Let the EFF handle the lawsuits, and let Library Genesis handle the illegal distribution of books. Everyone focus on what they’re best at.

They’re appealing the decision so there’s still opportunity for IA to throw good money after bad on this.

But when you die and an AI company contacts all your grieving friends and family to offer them access to an AI based on you (for a low, low fee!)

You can stop right there, you’re just imagining a scenario that suits your prejudices. Of all the applications for AI that I can imagine that would be better served by a model that is entirely under my control this would be the top of the list.

With that out of the way the rest of your rhetorical questions are moot.