jecxjo @ jecxjo @midwest.social

Born a sconie right on Lake Michigan, lived in Iowa for a handleful of year

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

326

Joined

3 yr. ago

I've always found his take too extreme. While I'm in agreement with things like being anti FB, and I'm 75% of the time living in a console with no X11, things like his issue with DRM for services like Netflix always baffled me. I'm paying a license fee for temporary access to media. If you don't like "renting" then go buy the content but being anti DRM for things one doesn't own seems odd.

I use the digital version of the local library which also uses DRM because they need a way to simulate the finite access of a resource like having a physical book provides. There is no "violation of my rights" in this situation as I can't do anything with this digital copy with digital rules that I could do with a physical book. That is outside of destroying it or stealing it.

Not big on Forth but I wouldn't see how any of that would be difficult on some Lisps depending on levels the macro system works on (e.g. Racket you can easily get into levels of code tokenization). I guess, is that type of manipulation typical on Forth? The whole reason one writes in Lisp is for "Code is Data" and extreme meta programming. Things you wouldn't think would be used that often but Lisp programmers use it a lot.

The problem is that they are still winning and somehow think they are losing. They will not be able to fix anything because their concept of "fixed" is wrong.

I grew up in north east Wisconsin where we all got work permits and started worming at 13 at hotels and restaurants. It's a pretty common.

What servers are people on? Just created a room on dal.net #lemmy

The specific protocol for irc is called DCC (Direct Client to Client). It enables a lot of non-chat functionality, one of which is sending/receiving files.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Client-to-Client

Person to Everyone. In the context of this discussion i can post an image, video or file to a discord channel and everyone who goes in there can download it.

In IRC you make a client to client connection and send files directly to one another. You can setup a bot to respond to individual requests and transfer files but there is no "hey everyone download this"

IRC does have file transfer, was how all us cool kids back in the early to mid 90s shared stuff. Its just that sharing is either p2p or you need a bot to mimic p2e.

As for the images, part of the benefit of IRC is its so ridiculously simple that you barely need anything to do it. Yeah features can be added to apps but the payoff isn't great. If you have the imgr app installed you already have quick image hosting. Tying apps to other services seems counter to how generic and open IRC is.

Why not ask God to just stop Russia from invading another country?

Worked in a resort area and some big church group showed up and tipped using money like that. Like a party of 20 people type group.

Everyone started calling around to establishment saying if you get a group of 20 and they all look like Jesus folk tell them to leave.

Good to know, they are pretty much Pokemon and Farming games so the biggest ergonomic question is how well it fits in their hand.

The key there is anyone profiting from the copyrighted work. I've been to big public events where the have sung Happy Birthday, things that may very have been recorded but none of us were sued because there was no damages, no profits lost.

The other big question is what are these lawsuits basing their complaint on. If I understand the Sarah Silverman claim is that she could go into ChatGPT and ask it for pages from her book and it generated them. Never once have i used ChatGPT and had it generate pages from her book so the question is the difference between my and her experience? The difference is she asked for that material. This may seem trivial but on the basis of how the technology works it's important.

You can go through their LLM and no where will you find her book. No where will you find pages of her book. No where will you find encoded or encrypted versions of her book. Rather, you'll find a data model with values showing the probability of a text output for given prompts. The model sometime generates valid responses and sometimes it gives wrong answers. Why? Because its a language model and not a library of text.

So the question now becomes, what is it the content creators are upset about? The fact that they asked it to generate content that turned out to match their own or that their content was used to teach the LLM. Because in no case is there a computer somewhere that has their text verbatim existing somewhere waiting to be displayed. If its about the output then I'd want to know how this is different than singing happy birthday. If I'm prompting the AI and then there are no damages, i don't use it for anything of fiduciary gains I'm not seeing an issue.

I agree with that, but do politicians and judges who know absolutely nothing about the subject?

I haf a professor in college who taught about cyber security. He was renowned in his field and was asked by the RIAA to testify about some cases related to file sharing. I lost respect for him when he intentionally refrained from stating that it wasnt possible for anyone outside of the home network yo know what or who was actually downloading stuff. The technology was being ignored and an invalid view was presented for a judge who couldn't ELI5 how the internet worked let along actually networking protocols.

I guess my question is why does it seem like an illegal service? Not saying it isn't but it feels like non technical people will say "it knows the lyrics and can tell me them so it must contain them."

To me the technology is moving closer to mimicking human memory than just plain storage retrieval. ChatGPT gets things wrong often because that process of presenting data is not copying but generation. The output is the output so presenting anything copyright falls under the appropriate laws but until the material is actually presented some of the arguments being made feel wrong. If i can read a book and then write anything, the fact your story is in my head shouldn't be a problem. If you prompt the AI for a book...isn't that your fault by asking?

Good point.

I could easily see laws created where they blanket outlaw computer generated output derived from other human created data sets and sudden medical and technical advancements stop because the laws were written by people who don't understand what is going on.

Wait wait wait. That is not a good description of what is happening. If you and i are in a chat room and you asked me the lyrics, my verbalization of them isn't an issue. The fact it is online just means the method of communication is different but that should be covered under free use.

The AI is taking prompts and proving the output as a dialog. It's literally a language model so there is a process of synthesizing your question and generating your output. I think that's something people either don't understand or completely ignore. Its not as if there are entire books verbatim stored as a contiguous block of data. The data is processed and synthesized into a language model that then generates an output that happens to match the requested text.

This is why we cant look at the output the same way we look at static text. In theory if you kept training it in a way then opposed the statistical nature of your book or lyrics you could eventually get to the point where asking the AI to generate your text would give a non-verbatim answer.

I get that this feels like semantics but creating laws that don't understand the technology means we end up screwing ourselves over.

They are being treated just like every other method to send someone money. They aren't using them as investment products, just transaction tools. I'm sure most are pulling the money out of the cryptocurrency as soon as they receive it.

I think the biggest barrier is that you're talking about a group of minimal skills that all require the rest of the business to use the skills they have and absolutely no resources to start with.

If you make food you need a kitchen and ingredients to be able to cook and then trade that for other services. All that requires money, or others to bring you food as payment for some other service you rendered. If you clean houses you need cleaning supplies. Now if you came in to cook or clean for someone who provides all the business needs then you're golden but that's not really how one of these communities work. You're assuming that there are those who can afford the services and others who can only render them.

This is just a fancy name for a barter system. That requires and entire economy running in the system, not just some services.

Thinking of maybe picking up two for the kids, 6 and 4. Put some Pokemon or Mario on there and they'd be set.

The issue is not whether you play it off as your own, but how much the damages are that you can be sued for.

I think that's one in the same. I'm just not seeing the damages here because the output of the AI doesn't go any further than being AI output without a further human act. Authors are idiots if they claim "well someone could ask ChatGPT to output my entire book and you could read it for free." If you want to go after that type of crime then have ChatGPT report the users asking for it. If your book is accessible via a library I'm not see any difference between you asking ChatGPT to write in someone's style and asking me to write in their style. If you ask ChatGPT for lines verbatim i can recite them too. I don't know what legitimate damages they are claiming.

For example, voice actors

I think this is a great example but again i feel like the law is not only lacking but would need to outlaw other human acts not currently considered illegal.

If you do impressions you're mimicking the tone, cadence and selection of language someone else does. You arent recording them and playing back the recording, you are using your own voice box to create a sound similar to the celebrity. An AI sound generator isn't playing back a recording either. It's measuring tone, cadence, and language used and creates a new sound similar to the celebrity. The only difference here is that the AI would be more precise than a humans ability to use their voice.