bamboo

I think if leftists started open carrying at protests we would either see way less harassment by police or literal civil war.

It’s unfortunate that they’re using an old processor, but this is super cool and shows that the framework platform allows companies to tinker with unusual laptop motherboards without having to design the rest of the device.

It hasn’t been decided in court yet, but it’s likely that AI training won’t be a considered copyright violation, especially if there is a measure in place to prevent exact 1:1 reproductions of the training material.

But even then, how is the questionable choices of some LLM trainers reason to ban all AI? There are some models that are trained exclusively on material that is explicitly licensed for this purpose. There’s nothing legally or morally dubious about training an LLM if the training material is all properly licensed, right?

Most computer displays also support hdmi too though. In the last though there were usually tradeoffs in using the hdmi input. Now hdmi has caught up enough that usually there’s no difference, assuming the manufacturer is using the latest standard.

Oh yeah those are problematic, but I’m pretty sure a court has ruled in a customer’s favor when the AI fucked up, which is good at least.

If it ends up being ruled that training an LLM is fair use so long as the LLM doesn’t reproduce the works it is trained on verbatim, then licensing becomes irrelevant.

Chatbots are fine as long as it’s clearly disclosed to the user that anything they generate could be wrong. They’re super useful just as an idea generating machine for example, or even as a starting point for technical questions when you don’t know what the right vocabulary is to describe a problem.

How would an LLM answering questions about a git repo be legally different from a person answering those same questions (think stackoverflow)? Specific to this case, US law does not consider “APIs” to be copyrightable (Oracle v Google, Google reimplemented Java using the same APIs but their own implementation code, court ruled that Oracle couldn’t copyright the APIs).

Regarding “replace”, the primary use of the git repo is the code itself, not the Q&A about how to use it. The LLM doesn’t generate code that fully replaces that library or program, or if it does, it is distinct enough to be a different work.

I mean, this is how courts work. Someone will sue because a work they hold copyright to was used in a training set without their authorization, the defendant will claim it was fair use, the judge will pick a side. To the best of my knowledge this hasn’t happened just yet, and since I’m not a judge, I use “probably”. Fair use is both vague and broad, and this is important to ensure copyright holders don’t have complete control over their work. It was recognized a long time ago that you can make works that utilize another copyrighted work, but don’t functionally replace the original work, and are therefore fair use. The whole point was to try and foster innovation, not to allow copyright holders to dictate how their works are used, and fair use is an essential part of that.

Training an LLM with a work doesn’t functionally replace that work. If there is a filter that prevents 1:1 reproduction, then it literally cannot. It also provides significant benefit to have these LLMs, they are a unique and valuable work themselves. That’s why it’s fair use.

Why do you think they need your permission to use information you posted publicly to train their models? Copyright isn’t unlimited, and model training is probably fair use.

Yeah this is super sensible. Out of curiosity, do you have any decent examples bad usage? I think chatbots, GitHub copilot type stuff to be fine. I find the rewording applications to be fine. I haven’t used it but Duolingo has an AI mode now and it is questionable sounding, but maybe it is elementary enough and fine tuned well enough for the content in the supported courses that errors are extremely rare or even detectable.

Lmao you got some criticism and now you’re saying everyone else is a bot or has an agenda. I am a software engineer and my organization does not gain any specific benefits for promoting AI in any way. They don’t sell AI products and never will. We do publish open source work however, and per its license anyone is free to use it for any purpose, AI training included. It’s actually great that our work is in training sets, because it means our users can ask tools like ChatGPT questions and it can usually generate accurate code, at least for the simple cases. Saves us time answering those questions ourselves.

I think that the anti-AI hysteria is stupid virtue signaling for luddites. LLMs are here, whether or not they train on your random project isn’t going to affect them in any meaningful way, there are more than enough fully open source works to train on. Better to have your work included so that the LLM can recommend it to people or answer questions about it.