Definitely not. Search engines point you to the original and aren't by any means selling access. That is the resources are accessible without using a search engine. LLMs are different because they do fold the inputs into the final product in a way that makes accessing the original material impossible. What's more LLMs can fully reproduce copyrighted works and will try to pass them off as it's own work.
Textbooks are a big one that I suspect we'll probably see a set of suits over. Particularly because they seem to be some of the most valuable training data.
This is a fair point with regards to a handful of companies (Microsoft, Google, Meta) but there will still be an immediate loss in quality as they go back to basics on their data pipelines. Given how long they've spent playing catch up in this space, I suspect progress will be pretty slow from there
Not that I can think of except maybe that whatever program was managing those hotkeys may have changed. If they show up as the wrong thing in xenv then that means your keyboard layout is set incorrectly.
Totally. I'm just trying to bring it up whenever I see folks having this discussion because some people don't seem to make the distinction. Worries me that some are so willing to cede that big social will illegally hoover up our data and there's nothing we can do about it.
Worth remembering when this comes up that this has been exacerbated recently by leadership changes at the times. They hired some fox fuck heads with the intent to both sides the country into a dictatorship.
Most likely they're still working they're just not mapped. If you have xenv (terminal command) installed it'll show you key presses. If they don't show up under xenv then they aren't working or are already being captured by something. Otherwise you'll want to find a way to map them which is probably dependent on your DE.
The existing industry that's popped up around LLMs has conveniently ignored that what these models are doing may have been illegal the whole time and a lot of the experts knew it. This is why it's so important for folks to realize that the industry is not just thin wrappers around ChatGPT (and that interesting applications of this technology are largely being pushed out by the lowest hanging fruit). If this is ruled as not fair use then the whole industry will basically disappear overnight and we'll have to rebuild it from scratch either with a new business model that pays authors or as open source/crowd sourced models (probably both). All that said we're almost certainly better off. Open AI may have kicked off the most recent "gold rush" but their methods have been terrible for both the industry at large and for further development of the tech.
To add a bit of important nuance to this idea (particularly how this argument comes up with regards to threads). This does not apply to legal rights over your content. That is to say, of course you should treat any information you put out there as out of your control with regards to access but if somebody tries to claim legal rights over your content they are probably breaking the law.
Most of this growth is in the bisexual demographic who are still severely undercounted. Not sure what this data says but bisexual men frequently self report at lower levels than gay men. Internalized homophobia really does a number on folks.
I think it's wild to see your first point made so frequently especially in light of the push for advancements in digital rights over the past few years. Having access to your data is by no means equivalent to having rights over it's usage (yes even with regards to showing ads NEXT TO the content) and any conversation that doesn't take that into account is dishonest at best.
Your second point I strongly agree with. The absolute best case scenario here would've been for the existing fediverse to refuse federation unless Meta agreed to some fairly basic terms. It was probably the only time when noncorporate social was going to have any leverage at all. Not necessarily too late but it seems unlikely
spaduf @ spaduf @slrpnk.net Posts 97Comments 452Joined 2 yr. ago
Pretty sure you were downvoted because it looks like you've misunderstood. The NYT do, in fact, pay their authors.