The language model isn’t teaching anything it is changing the wording of something and spitting it back out. And in some cases, not changing the wording at all, just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source.

You could honestly say the same about most “teaching” that a student without a real comprehension of the subject does for another student. But ultimately, that’s beside the point. Because changing the wording, structure, and presentation is all that is necessary to avoid copyright violation. You cannot copyright the information. Only a specific expression of it.

There’s no special exception for AI here. That’s how copyright works for you, me, the student, and the AI. And if you’re hoping that copyright is going to save you from the outcomes you’re worried about, it won’t.

Makes sense to me. Search indices tend to store large amounts of copyrighted material yet they don’t violate copyright. What matters is whether or not you’re redistributing illegal copies of the material.

If I understand correctly they are ruling you can by a book once, and redistribute the information to as many people you want without consequences. Aka 1 student should be able to buy a textbook and redistribute it to all other students for free. (Yet the rules only work for companies apparently, as the students would still be committing a crime)

A student can absolutely buy a text book and then teach the other students the information in it for free. That’s not redistribution. Redistribution would mean making copies of the book to hand out. That’s illegal for people and companies.

It seems like a lot of people misunderstand copyright so let’s be clear: the answer is yes. You can absolutely digitize your books. You can rip your movies and store them on a home server and run them through compression algorithms.

Copyright exists to prevent others from redistributing your work so as long as you’re doing all of that for personal use, the copyright owner has no say over what you do with it.

You even have some degree of latitude to create and distribute transformative works with a violation only occurring when you distribute something pretty damn close to a copy of the original. Some perfectly legal examples: create a word cloud of a book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet.

You can absolutely do the same kinds of things an AI does with a work as a human.

deleted by creator

Oh look what was just posted today: https://youtu.be/Cp5oajtBbtg

TLDW: It’s been proposed. Turn’s out it’s really hard to even do that.

deleted by creator

Wikipedia has a whole list of citations on this very sentence lol.

There is near unanimous consensus among economists that tariffs are self-defeating and have a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

Tariffs are a net negative. Always. The things produced will not be competitive on the global market, if they were, we’d already be making them. The higher prices always destroy more jobs than they create. Retaliatory tariffs destroy even more jobs. The higher prices drive down demand and make the working class consumer poorer. Always.

There’s no economic upside to tariffs, over any time horizon. They create a small number of jobs in a specific sector at a very expensive cost. Some politicians might decide that the enormous economic cost is worth it for other reasons, but a net positive they are not.

I wouldn’t base your decision on what Lemmy says. They’re pretty unreasonably salty about the game. Reviews from players are very positive and the game’s only $23 right now.

• Despite what they’re saying, there is actually a lot of legitimately interesting and sometimes fantastical biomes and this update has added even more.
• There are a lot of different parts of the game that you can pretty casually engage in. Various missions, settlements, settlement management, ship collecting, manufacturing, fleet management, trading, piracy, archeology, and more.
• It’s a relaxation game for me. Just hop on, pick a direction, and go. Do whatever piques your interest in the moment.

If “casual” and “relaxing” are dirty words for you, then it probably isn’t up your alley. It’s certainly not going to be intense and action packed (though it does have its moments). But it’s a good game if you, like me, sometimes get tired of the sweaty online shit, crunchy brain melting games, and the overall weight of life in the real.

There’s no good party for most people but that doesn’t stop many of them from demanding better from their parties. The story, though, is about how Christians are demanding their religious leaders change rather than demand better from their politicians.

I don’t mean to imply that Christianity is progressive. But how a person reacts when politics is at odds with their religious beliefs is illuminating. Do their political beliefs follow from sincerely held religious beliefs? Or do they contort their religion in service of their political beliefs? For much of the religious right, it’s clearly the latter.

It is definitely telling that when conservatism has come at odds with Christianity, so many Christians have chosen to abandon Christianity instead of abandoning conservatism.

I work at a pretty progressive company (comparatively but definitely not perfect) and DEI there has nothing to do with preferential treatment, nor does it need to be.

The fact is that if you want to hire the top X people in the labor market, but your hiring and business practices exclude, say, half of that market, you absolutely will not get the actual top X. You will have to reach deeper into your half and be forced to pick people that are less qualified and/or capable.

So DEI, at least where I’m at, is about widening that pool so that you can actually get top talent. That means reevaluating your business practices to figure out why you’re excluding top talent. Maybe your recruiters always go to specific colleges for recruitment and certain websites. Maybe just the way they’re talking to candidates is more attractive to a certain type of person. Maybe you’ve got hiring requirements and an interview process that is not actually predictive of success. Maybe candidates are looking for some benefit that you’re not offering. Everything needs to be looked at.

For example, “Women just want more flexible working arrangements so that’s why we can’t get them” is something I hear often. Well, have you actually evaluated why your company is so inflexible? Is it actually necessary? Or are your executives a bunch of people who learned how to manage in the 20th century and haven’t changed since then? Maybe there are things you can do to enter the 21st century and make room for more women, not just because they’re women, but because you gain access to people who are actually better at their job than the ones you’ve had. Not every company can be supremely flexible, of course, but the number of times that inflexibility is actually necessary of much smaller than its prevalence.

The demographic breakdown of your workforce is a quick and easy weathervane to help figure out how these efforts but of course they’re not everything. Diversity comes in maybe forms, not just skin color and genitals. But in my company they’re used in a backwards looking manner, to see how new policies are working, not for quota filling and preferential treatment.

deleted by creator

Yeah it’s crazy. To me, respect for the presidency keeping it crime-free. People committing crimes in pursuit of the presidency or while in its office should be harshly prosecuted, not let off.

That’s… the point? Civilizations with that kind of tendency may very well destroy their planet and/or themselves long before they advance to the point where they are detectable to an outside observer many light years away.

The human race is at the moment in a race against time. We’re hoping that we can develop new technology to save ourselves faster than we destroy everything around us. This kind of race has probably happened countless times across the vast universe and perhaps the laws of physics ultimately make the race unwinnable. These laws limit how much technology can do for any species, no matter how smart, so it would be a universal filter.

If the only way to win the race is to slow down the destruction of the environment to the point that the species is undetectable, that solves the Fermi paradox.

Your inability to come up with a way to produce evidence doesn’t make the strong atheist’s stance unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable isn’t “We can’t produce any evidence that would falsify the claim right now.” That would take us to an absurd definition of the word where any scientific theory that requires more advanced technology than we currently have is “unfalsifiable.” That’s not what the word means.

The difficulty in proving that God exists isn’t what makes theism unfalsifiable. You shouldn’t make any assumptions about what can or cannot be proven true at some point in the future. What makes it unfalsifiable is that there’s no rational way to prove that God doesn’t exist, not because of an inability to collect evidence, but because the logical framework constructed by religious claims forbids it. Strong atheism has forbade no such thing. There’s no equivalence here.

Strong atheism is, in fact, a religious belief: claims of the non-existence of gods are no more falsifiable than claims of the existence of them, so in order to “know” there is no god one must have faith.

Um… Show evidence that a god exists. Poof, you have falsified the claim that no god exists. Pretty easy, actually.

Those… don’t hold any weight lol. Once you post on any website, you hand copyright over to the website owner. That’s what gives them permission to relay your message to anyone reading the website. Copyright doesn’t do anything to restrict readers of the content (I.e. model trainers). Only publishers.