Are you speaking legally or morally when you say someone “aught” to do something?

You most certainly can. The discussion about whether copyright applies to the output is nuanced but certainly valid, and notably separate from whether copyright allows copyright holders to restrict who or what gets trained on their work after it’s released for general consumption.

The article is literally about someone suing to prevent their art from being used for training. That’s the topic at hand.

Are you confused, or are you trying to shoehorn a different but related discussion into this one?

I was under the impression we were talking about using copyright to prevent a work from being used to train a generative model. There’s nothing in copyright that says anything about training anything. I’m not even convinced there should be.

There’s nothing in copyright law that covers this scenario, so anyone that says it’s “absolutely” one way or the other is telling you an opinion, not a fact.

Yeah I read that but I don’t have the knowledge to say “what a rookie mistake” or “in hindsight that was a bad idea”. I take it, it’s the former?

I’m not a cybersecurity expert. Did they make a foolish decision that would warrant a lack of trust, or were they just unlucky?

I can’t say I fully understand how LLMs work (can’t anyone??) but I know a little and your comment doesn’t seem to understand how they use training data. They don’t use their training data to “memorize” sentences, they use it as an example (among billions) of how language works. It’s still just an analogy, but it really is pretty close to LLMs “learning” a language by seeing it used over and over. Keeping in mind that we’re still in an analogy, it isn’t considered “derivative” when someone learns a language from examples of that language and then goes on to write a poem in that language.

Copyright doesn’t even apply, except perhaps on extremely fringe cases. If a journalist put their article up online for general consumption, then it doesn’t violate copyright to use that work as a way to train a LLM on what the language looks like when used properly. There is no aspect of copyright law that covers this, but I don’t see why it would be any different than the human equivalent. Would you really back up the NYT if they claimed that using their articles to learn English was in violation of their copyright? Do people need to attribute where they learned a new word or strengthened their understanding of a language if they answer a question using that word? Does that even make sense?

Here is a link to a high level primer to help understand how LLMs work: https://www.understandingai.org/p/large-language-models-explained-with

My first playthrough was the same thing, but I think it’s because I picked her up so late in Act 1. I have no actual data but I think that if you don’t have a certain level of approval with her when you

you miss out on romancing her for the rest of the game. For my playthrough, I basically picked her up, and started progressing through her quest immediately, and already that the item needed to finish her act 1 storyline; I think that’s what locked me out. Again, I’m just speculating, though.

That article has all the feeling of being written by a high school sophomore 1 hour before it was due. I especially enjoyed the “In conclusion” to kick off the final paragraph.

And to save you a click:

The average US president has been charged with 2 felonies. However, this statistic is heavily influenced by former President Donald Trump, who became a statistical outlier due to the multiple legal issues he faced during his tenure.

I’m not sure your second point is as strong as you believe it to be. Do you have a specific example in mind? I think most vehicle problems that would require an emergency responder will have easy access to a tow service to deal with the car with or without a human being involved. It’s not like just because a human is there that the problem is more easily solved. For minor-to-moderate accidents that just require a police report, things might get messy but that’s an issue with the law, not necessarily something inherently wrong with the concept of self driving vehicles.

Also, your first point is on shaky ground, I think. I don’t know why the metric is accidents with fatalities, but since that’s what you used, what do you think having fewer humans involved does to the chance of killing a human?

I’m all for numbers being crunched, and to be clear (as you were, I think) the numbers are the real deciding metrics here, not thought experiments.

And I think it’s 100% true that autonomous transportation doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than humans. Not that you disagree with this, but it is probably what people are thinking when they say “humans do this too”.

How sure are you? If licenses were such valuable troves of information, surely one person would have thought of a small hidden camera, right?

You don’t think there is a camera aimed at the register?

Oh. I was thinking private like a password.

I’m sorry but I’m not following your point. I’m questioning whether the info on a license is really “private info”. I am not suggesting that people be forced to give Twitter their ID

That’s not any working definition of private information I’ve ever seen.

We’re talking about privacy in the context of information security.

Edit: for context, I’m not questioning whether people must give their ID to Twitter.

Can you elaborate? What makes an ID number unable to be disclosed? What is the point of identification that you can’t show?

I think this may be closer to the reality of the situation. It’s not so much that IDs are private, it’s that people want their Twitter (X?) account to be anonymous.

I get that. My username on Twitter was my real name so I kinda messed that up right away. I didn’t really use it though.

I can’t speak definitely, but I’m pretty sure it’s been made illegal to have your driver’s license ID be a derivative of your SSN. That was a thing that happened though.

But I can’t tell if you’re pointing this out to strengthen my stance, or weaken it. It’s still something that gets scanned to get into a bar or buy alcohol, and that’s effectively the public, right?

Sure, but if they’re not really private information, then what is the concern? It seems to function similarly to an email address, kinda? Something I’d really rather not be shown to the public but also something I’m giving out to the public all the time.