FaceDeer @ FaceDeer @fedia.io

Basically [a deer with a human face](https://imgur.com/9Wg5TTx.png). Despit

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

1,799

Joined

1 yr. ago

Did you read the actual order? The detailed conclusions begin on page 9. What specific bits did he get wrong?

Not even slightly, the judge didn't rule anything like that. I'd suggest taking a read through his ruling, his conclusions start on page 9 and they're not that complicated. In a nutshell, it's just saying that the training of an AI doesn't violate the copyright of the training material.

How Anthropic got the training material is a separate matter, that part is going to an actual try. This was a preliminary judgment on just the training part.

Foregoing copyright law because there's too much data is also insane, if that's what's happening.

That's not what's happening. And Citizens United has nothing to do with this. It's about the question of whether training an AI is something that can violate copyright.

The judge isn't saying that they learn or that they're people. He's saying that training falls into the same legal classification as learning.

The word "American" has come to mean "Inhabitant of the United States of America." You should use "North American" instead if you want to include both Americans and Canadians.

Do you think AIs spontaneously generate? They are a tool that people use. I don't want to give the AIs rights, it's about the people who build and use them.

Well, I'm talking about the reality of the law. The judge equated training with learning and stated that there is nothing in copyright that can prohibit it. Go ahead and read the judge's ruling, it's on display at the article linked. His conclusions start on page 9.

Yes, and that part of the case is going to trial. This was a preliminary judgment specifically about the training itself.

How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.

I literally quoted a relevant part of the judge's decision:

But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such.

You should read the ruling in more detail, the judge explains the reasoning behind why he found the way that he did. For example:

Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such. Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.

This isn't "oligarch interests and demands," this is affirming a right to learn and that copyright doesn't allow its holder to prohibit people from analyzing the things that they read.

This was a preliminary judgment, he didn't actually rule on the piracy part. That part he deferred to an actual full trial.

The part about training being a copyright violation, though, he ruled against.

I'm not writing code for a medical device. I'm tinkering with a mod for a game. I can't imagine how getting something wrong would do any greater harm than wasting some of my time.

Argues for the importance of student essays, and then:

When artificial intelligence is used to diagnose cancer or automate soul-crushing tasks that require vapid toiling, it makes us more human and should be celebrated.

I remember student essays as being soul-crushing vapid toiling, personally.

The author is very fixated on the notion that these essays are vital parts of human education. Is he aware that for much of human history - and even today, in many regions of the world - essay-writing like this wasn't so important? I think one neat element of AI's rise will be the growth of some other methods of teaching that have fallen by the wayside. Socratic dialogue, debate, personal one-on-one tutoring.

I've been teaching myself some new APIs and programming techniques recently, for example, and I'm finding it way easier having an AI to talk me through it than it is grinding my way through documentation directly.

One of those times it's nice to be a prepper, even if only on a relatively small scale. I bought a couple of months' worth of gasoline last week.

That would require an ever-increasing amount of forested land. A carbon pyramid scheme. As soon as you stop increasing the forest's area it goes back to an equilibrium of trees decaying equalling trees growing.

And the rest of them just stay frozen upright forever, I suppose.

You think trees don't die and fall down on their own?

And even if you did do that, where would you store the wood afterwards? You can't let it decay, that'd just put the carbon back into the atmosphere.

I'm responding to someone who said:

Seems like humans are moving towards ending all life on earth. Just another dead rock in an infinite vacuum.

That's the context.

My point is that this is not true, and I'm explaining why it's not true.

You can believe it all you want, the numbers just aren't there. There are only ~3800 nuclear warheads that are ready for launch, across all countries that possess them. That's not enough to put a permanent dent in the human population even if you launched all of them targeted to inflict maximum casualties. Which isn't how they'd be launched, of course - most of them would be aimed at military targets, such as ICBM silos and airstrips that are out in the middle of nowhere.

I expect you'll propose nuclear winter as the actual killing effect. Nuclear winter has been drastically overblown, often for this very reason - to scare people into an anti-proliferation stance. We know a lot more now than we did when the first wild predictions were made.

Again, not to say that nuclear war isn't bad. But if one is to make good decisions one should strive for realistic understanding of the world. It wouldn't literally cause human extinction.

Not to say that nuclear war isn't bad, but we literally don't have enough bombs available to do that.