pips @ Pips @lemmy.film

Posts

165

Comments

158

Joined

2 yr. ago

Free speech is not absolute, there are exceptions. And the government can't really stop hate speech until it crosses a certain threshold. Also, the fictional gay couple in the case in question was literally denied a platform and your argument has no internal logic, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. Saying you can't discriminate against gay people is not the same as saying you should be forced to build websites for Nazis. To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

You're making a hasty generalization here

I'm really not, though I'll readily admit I'm simplifying things. An LLM can only create something it's been given. I guess it can generate a string of characters and assign a definition to it, but it's not really intentional creation. There are many similarities between how a human generates something and how an LLM does, but to argue they're the same radically oversimplifies how humans work. While we can program an LLM, we literally do not have the capability to replicate a human brain.

For example, can you tell me what emotions the LLM had when it produced the output it did? Did its physical condition have any effect? What about its past, not just what it has learned but how it was treated? What is its motivation? A human response to anything involving creativity factors in many things that we aren't even consciously aware of, and these are things an LLM doesn't have.

The study you're citing is from Google, there's likely some bias and selective reporting. That said, we were talking about creativity, not regurgitating facts or analyzing data. I think it's universally accepted that as the tech gets better, it's preferable to have a computer make the first attempt at a diagnosis, especially for a scan or large data analysis, then have a human confirm.

For the remix example, don't forget that samples get attribution. Artists credit what they sampled and get called out when they don't. I'm actually unclear as to whether an LLM actually can cite to how it derived its output just because the coders haven't revealed if there's some sort of derivation log.

The problem is essentially how do you define ownership? Is there a right to not make something the copyright holder owns publicly available?

I think in the cases of abandonware or more recently the moves by media companies to delist certain media for tax benefits, there's a good argument to be made over forfeiting the copyright, so it's now public domain and fair game. But I also think for something like the Star Wars Holiday Special, where the creator/copyright holder (not sure about that status post-Disney acquisition) genuinely hates it and does not want it available to the public, the owner should be allowed to restrict access to it.

I check it every so often without logging in. A lot of the old major subs went dark and both All and Popular are almost exclusively memes. The occasional News or Politics article breaks through but, and this may be because I usually didn't visit All, it's like looking at a completely different website. The comments aren't too much different but it feels like desktop users are getting the upvotes now as opposed to the shorter but still solid replies from mobile users.

The fandom subs I frequented (Star Wars, NBA, etc.) have sort of gone to shit, though it's hard to tell how much of that was always there. Actually the biggest difference may be just how unmoderated some of the big subs are, so where before duplicate posts on the same topic would be removed in Technology, now you'll see 20 articles on the same thing. I suspect Reddit admins are inflating vote counts to make engagement look the same as always when participation is actually down, but it's just a hunch. I have no proof of it.

An LLM can't make something original, it can only make something derivative. But that derivative work isn't the same as when a human makes a derivative work because a human isn't writing each word or phrase based on the likely "correct" next word or phrase through an algorithmic process. What humans do is magnitudes more complex, though it can at times also be accidental or intentional plagiarism.

In short, an LLM's output is necessarily a string of preexisting human inputs. A human's output, while it can be informed by and reference other human inputs, can be an original analysis. The AI that is publicly available is not sophisticated enough to be more than fancy predictive text.

Well, no, because making a wedding cake supporting a marriage is inherently different from making a cake supporting a hate group. One is about bringing people together, the other is about dividing them. Also, LGBTQ* people don't choose their sexuality, it's an inalienable part of who they are. Nazis choose to be Nazis. Some might be raised in it, so it's all they know, but it's something they can change about themselves. Someone who is bisexual is pretty much always going to be bisexual. It's the same reason we don't discriminate on the basis on skin color: it's something the person can't control about themselves and has no bearing on who they are except to the degree society has made it so. A religion discriminating on the basis of race or sexuality doesn't mean it's okay to do so. Christians also used to believe in child marriage, but guess what? Times have changed.

Additionally, just because it's speech doesn't mean it's equal in what it's doing nor does it mean that it should be treated the same. Ignoring that this case probably shouldn't be used as precedent because the underlying facts are made up (also showing how disingenuous the argument is), there's a difference between saying you can't choose to deny business to someone because of who they are (LBGTQ*) versus saying you can choose not to do business with someone over their opinion (Nazi).

Because the LLM is also outputting the copyrighted material.

But when the answers aren't original thoughts but regurgitations of other peoples' thoughts about the book, then it's plagiarism. LLMs can't provide original output, only variations on what people have made available (whether legally or not). The answer might not even be correct or make any sense. It's just predictive text to a crazy degree.

When you copy someone's work without attribution, that's plagiarism. When your output is only possible because of someone else's work over which they own copyright and the output replicated the copyrighted material, that's copyright infringement.

It's sort of like email. There's enough commonality in form and function that different versions of the same thing can talk to each other but you can pick where you have your account.

Probably a three way tie among:

Nirvana - MTV Unplugged in New York

Portishead - Roseland NYC Live

Dave Matthews Band - The Central Park Concert

I also have a soft spot for The Complete Monterey Pop Festival

There's a lot of complexity there for adults but they're really targeted at children, especially I - VI. However, I totally agree with you that the overanalyzing comes from adults. Some of that is from Legends canon feeling the need to explain everything and telling stories that go far beyond kids' stories. For example, my introduction to Star Wars was when I was 6 and picked up The Crystal Star well before I ever saw the movies, which was wildly age inappropriate (also...I know in hindsight how terrible it is but at the time it was my first step into a larger world). If my parents knew how that book read, they probably wouldn't have given it to me, but they knew Star Wars as something for older primary school children and older.

That said, the messages are stored locally on the device or in a cloud backup unless you disable that. If the device is unlocked, the messages are available to whoever has the device.

Think about how well the SSA is funded and then consider where they might have cost cut. You'd be surprised how much contract IT eats into a budget.

Generally speaking, prosecutors care a lot about shit that'll tank their case.

Play to your audience, not your opponent. Occasionally they're the same person.

I looked at the front page of Reddit without logging in a few hours ago and the site is almost unrecognizable. I'm sure there are people that prefer this iteration but I'm fine moving on.

Still no. Do they do it anyway? Probably, but that doesn't make it legal.

Same here, went dark as I was scrolling. Guess that's it for me on Reddit in any kind of meaningful way.