Basically credit card theft.

Over twenty years ago, when I was pretty young and inexperienced, I answered a newspaper ad for IT/programming at a so-called "startup." It sounded great.

My first day was in someone's living room-turned office and I didn't actually have any real idea what the business was. I was told it was a financial company, but it was taking off like gangbusters. Relatively quickly, within days actually, we moved into a very nice class-A office building. The owner was a remarkably charismatic man and being in his presence made you feel warm and understood and like you had a world of possibilities around you. I felt like a badass: I had a good-paying job, worked in a beautiful and prestigious office, and had a boss who made me feel great.

I found out, however, he was basically just running a scam. Between about 2-4am, he would have TV spots running, selling naive housewives, unemployment breadwinners, alcoholics, etc a "system" to earn huge sums of money very quickly. His system? You find people selling notes. You find people who want to buy notes. You introduce them and take a commission. A huuuuuuge commission.

Was that illegal? I don't know. I kind of doubt the people in the ads were real, but my paychecks were clearing.

I learned that when his sales people (who worked late at night, when the infomercials ran) took orders, they would record everyone's credit card info. Then, the owner directed us to automatically sign them up for things they didn't ask for -- recurring subscriptions to his membership-based "note marketplace" website. This was before the Internet was so mainstream, and many people buying this package didn't even have a computer.

If people tried to place an order, and one credit card was declined, he'd just have them quietly try another card we had on file for them, without asking. If anyone complained, they'd obviously just refund the whole charge to avoid pissing off the credit card companies, but he was really just hoping no one would notice.

I quit pretty quickly and got a "real" real job.

At least part of it is that JavaScript is not really a batteries included language like Python or Java to even PHP.

You can’t really do anything productive without relying on a third party library.

A lot of coffee/donut/pastry shops offer “service discounts” to cops, firefighters, and paramedics. It really took off after 9/11.

I don't really see the benefit anymore. My current device lasts ~40 hours on a charge, so I seldom find the need to swap anything out. Even if I did, those little USB battery packs that charge multiple devices are more practical. On a long flight, my wife and I just share one and it works on the Switch and tablet too.

Sealed devices have way better water resistance, less plastic makes the batteries themselves bigger, and wireless charging (especially with magnets) will be challenging to add to a battery that's also the back cover.

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but, I don't really have any interest in a removable battery, especially if it involves other compromises on size, capacity, and features.

You meet them online, but they’re a vocal minority. Especially when a smaller phone means a smaller battery and worse camera system, two of the consistently top priorities for consumers.

I'd say I slowed down my usage, as I looked for alternatives. But yeah, once Apollo stopped working, I cut out Reddit cold turkey.

Isn’t learning the basic act of reading text? I’m not sure what the AI companies are doing is completely right but also, if your position is that only humans can learn and adapt text, that broadly rules out any AI ever.

If I gave a worker a pirated link to several books and scientific papers in the field, and asked them to synthesize an overview/summary of what they read and publish it, I’d get my ass sued. I have to buy the books and the scientific papers.

Well, if OpenAI knowingly used pirated work, that's one thing. It seems pretty unlikely and certainly hasn't been proven anywhere.

Of course, they could have done so unknowingly. For example, if John C Pirate published the transcripts of every movie since 1980 on his website, and OpenAI merely crawled his website (in the same way Google does), it's hard to make the case that they're really at fault any more than Google would be.

It's from the Denver Business Journal.

I'm assuming you couldn't get around the paywall, so here you go:

In May, Twitter’s landlord filed a complaint against its tenant Twitter, alleging that the company is behind on rent payments. The landlord is Lot 2 SBO LLC, affiliated with The John Buck Company, a Chicago-based real estate firm.

The complaint alleges that Twitter set up a letter of credit for $968,000 that the landlord could draw upon if the company failed to pay its rent, and the lease agreement said Twitter must replenish that letter of credit within 10 days if that were to happen.

The landlord used the letter of credit toward the unpaid rent this March, according to the complaint, but Twitter failed to restore the letter of credit within 10 days, as outlined in its lease.

Basically yes, non-payment of rent.

Honestly, that's fine. Good for Reddit.

It's just not a place for me anymore.

There is already a business model for compensating authors: it is called buying the book. If the AI trainers are pirating books, then yeah - sue them.

That's part of the allegation, but it's unsubstantiated. It isn't entirely coherent.

Adding “Reddit” to your Google search only helped because content from Reddit wasn’t linkfarm blogspam.

Frankly that was changing anyway. Reddit was going downhill well before the api changes.

While true, there's still some pretty questionable/pro-CCP moderation on lemmy.ml.

BIOS passwords have only ever been to deter unsophisticated attacks. Though this is more unsophisticated than the rest.

That means that it’s from a journal in Denver. Boulder is 15 miles from Denver.

I actually think that you're hitting on something that would be a good idea, but probably a redesign of Lemmy (or something new entirely).

Communities should work more like hashtags. If you "subscribe" to politics or technology or whatever, you should be able to get posts from across the fediverse with that label, instead of just what's on your local instance. Then, you should be able to subscribe to moderation decisions like you can on Bluesky.

Combine those two things and you've made something powerful.

Maybe you don't care, but the OSI definition does.

That would essentially create one massively profitable business (ads) and one very unprofitable business (everything else). There might be exceptions, like cloud computing, but most of Google is not self-sustaining without its ad business.

Doesn’t seam feasible for the survival of the rest of Google.

The maximum a phone will ever last is probably ~10 years, because that's about how often 2g, 3g, lasted. By then it certainly isn't getting any software updates and on the Android side, security updates won't even last 5.

So the maximum lifespan of a phone is, reasonably, 5 years. That's taking into account software updates, and other wear and tear.

During that time, if you use and abuse the battery, you might go through 2 batteries, which you can have serviced.

So I'd say it's more akin to a timing chain that's a pain in the ass to replace. Most car owners would not try to replace a timing belt, much less a timing chain.

Okay, given that AI models need to look over hundreds of thousands if not millions of documents to get to a decent level of usefulness, how much should the author of each individual work get paid out?

Congress has been here before. In the early days of radio, DJs were infringing on recording copyrights by playing music on the air. Congress knew it wasn't feasible to require every song be explicitly licensed for radio reproduction, so they created a compulsory license system where creators are required to license their songs for radio distribution. They do get paid for each play, but at a rate set by the government, not negotiated directly.

Another issue, who decides which works are more valuable, or how? Is a Shel Silverstein book worth less than a Mark Twain novel because it contains less words? If I self publish a book, is it worth as much as Mark Twains? Sure his is more popular but maybe mine is longer and contains more content, whats my payout in this scenario?

I'd say no one. Just like Taylor Swift gets the same payment as your garage band per play, a compulsory licensing model doesn't care who you are.

Isn’t learning the basic act of reading text?

not even close. that’s not how AI training models work, either.

Of course it is. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but the way generative AI works and the we incorporate styles and patterns are more similar than not. Besides, if a tensorflow script more closely emulated a human's learning process, would that matter for you? I doubt that very much.

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of >> their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools

Having to individually license each unit of work for a LLM would be as ridiculous as trying to run a university where you have to individually license each student reading each textbook. It would never work.

What we're broadly talking about is generative work. That is, by absorbing one a body of work, the model incorporates it into an overall corpus of learned patterns. That's not materially different from how anyone learns to write. Even my use of the word "materially" in the last sentence is, surely, based on seeing it used in similar patterns of text.

The difference is that a human's ability to absorb information is finite and bounded by the constraints of our experience. If I read 100 science fiction books, I can probably write a new science fiction book in a similar style. The difference is that I can only do that a handful of times in a lifetime. A LLM can do it almost infinitely and then have that ability reused by any number of other consumers.

There's a case here that the renumeration process we have for original work doesn't fit well into the AI training models, and maybe Congress should remedy that, but on its face I don't think it's feasible to just shut it all down. Something of a compulsory license model, with the understanding that AI training is automatically fair use, seems more reasonable.

IMO, this is also a reminder, however, that the US needs better privacy laws in general. It won't always be just to spam you.

Think about your buying habits and consider whether they might be useful to, say, an insurance broker.

If you want something very cheap (though not necessarily totally free), and within your control, just get an AWS S3 bucket and put them there. Or possibly Backblaze.

You're getting lost in the weeds here and completely misunderstanding both copyright law and the technology used here.

First of all, copyright law does not care about the algorithms used and how well they map what a human mind does. That's irrelevant. There's nothing in particular about copyright that applies only to humans but not to machines. Either a work is transformative or it isn't. Either it's derivative of it isn't.

What AI is doing is incorporating individual works into a much, much larger corpus of writing style and idioms. If a LLM sees an idiom used a handful of times, it might start using it where the context fits. If a human sees an idiom used a handful of times, they might do the same. That's true regardless of algorithm and there's certainly nothing in copyright or common sense that separates one from another. If I read enough Hunter S Thompson, I might start writing like him. If you feed an LLM enough of the same, it might too.

Where copyright comes into play is in whether the new work produced is derivative or transformative. If an entity writes and publishes a sequel to The Road, Cormac McCarthy's estate is owed some money. If an entity writes and publishes something vaguely (or even directly) inspired by McCarthy's writing, no money is owed. How that work came to be (algorithms or human flesh) is completely immaterial.

So it's really, really hard to make the case that there's any direct copyright infringement here. Absorbing material and incorporating it into future works is what the act of reading is.

The problem is that as a consumer, if I buy a book for $12, I'm fairly limited in how much use I can get out of it. I can only buy and read so many books in my lifetime, and I can only produce so much content. The same is not true for an LLM, so there is a case that Congress should charge them differently for using copyrighted works, but the idea that OpenAI should have to go to each author and negotiate each book would really just shut the whole project down. (And no, it wouldn't be directly negotiated with publishers, as authors often retain the rights to deny or approve licensure).

In fairness, they didn't release anything open at all.

A "tankie" is a pejorative word for a Stalinist. (Just in case any readers aren't familiar with the word?)

Basically lemmy (the project) was started by some Marxist-Leninists who have a soft spot for the CCP and authoritarian communism (really). Lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml actually share the same IP address. And lemmy contributors seem to have lemmygrad accounts.

@feditips, who is a pretty well-respected Fediverse advocate, has recommended against lemmy here and here, with pretty good reasoning.

Having said that, the politics of the authors of the software do not necessarily dictate how you, me, or anyone else choose to run instances.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-launches-boom-ai-written-e-books-amazon-2023-02-21/

Yes. You’re signing up to be a moderator.

The liability issue is addressed somewhat through the DMCA safe harbor law. But it’s probably not a lawsuit you want.

Google the advertising business would have no trouble on its own. But the advertising business and cloud computing business are their only meaningfully profitable businesses.

Google Arts & Culture, Google Photos, Google Duo, Google Voice, etc would likely need to figure out business models, and those business models may not be what you'd want.

Her lawsuit doesn't say that. It says,

when ChatGPT is prompted, ChatGPT generates summaries of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works—something only possible if ChatGPT was trained on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works

That's an absurd claim. ChatGPT has surely read hundreds, perhaps thousands of reviews of her book. It can summarize it just like I can summarize Othello, even though I've never seen the play.

You can certainly make the argument that phones (and computers) are slowing down. It used to be a revolution every year or two, now it’s very incremental.

I would not say though that you can effectively use a 10 year old phone. There are some old networks out there, but major networks shut down 3g.

You might have seen Joanna Stern’s attempt to use an iPhone 4 on YouTube last year (if not watch it for some amusement). Even if the battery on that device were fine, the device was really pretty unusable.

Also: even if the battery were easily replaceable, replacements will only be easy to find for the most popular older phones.

Their Boulder presence was/is mostly people who work on its API.

Is that site still around?

As long as they're reasonably replaceable, I don't see it as a big issue for longevity. I'd rather have a bigger battery (less plastic casing), wireless charging w/ magsafe, better water resistance, etc.

If the battery is toast 3 years in, I can just replace it, which I've done on other devices (including my last Pixel). It's not much more inconvenient than taking a car in for an oil change. Besides, on my 18 month old phone, capacity is at 95%. These days batteries often last as long as you'll need them.

I see the much bigger longevity issue on the software side. Many phones (especially budget ones) only get 1 major OS upgrade and very infrequent security upgrades.

Perhaps most controversially, the report states that the government believes it can “persistently” track the phones of “millions of Americans” without a warrant, so long as it pays for the information. Were the government to simply demand access to a device's location instead, it would be considered a Fourth Amendment “search” and would require a judge's sign-off. But because companies are willing to sell the information—not only to the US government but to other companies as well—the government considers it “publicly available” and therefore asserts that it “can purchase it.”

Basically, they're buying the profiles corporations already have on you. It isn't just to sell you pasta sauce; your shoppers' card also helps build a government profile on you.

It wouldn't be a post-Google world, it would be a world of "baby Googles" all trying to find a path to profitability, most likely by invading your privacy even more or doing other unsavory things. Google's bad for privacy, but if broken up into a long tail of tiny businesses, it could actually be much worse.

Google has been a shitballoon for years now.

I’ve been trying Kagi lately. It’s not bad. You have to pay for it, but there are zero ads and their interests align with mine.

I'm tempted to say it's better, but, unfortunately, in many ways it's not.

What Reddit had, most of the time, was semi-canonical communities. There was /r/python, /r/linux, /r/privacy, etc. The diaspora of Lemmy is a shadow of all of that. Surely, there are a dozen or so (at least) /c/python communities on Lemmy, but is there a single one that's anywhere near as active as the Reddit one? No. Not so far, at least.

And unfortunately, I can say as an instance admin, the lemmy moderation tools are just flat bad. We had to turn off open registration and enable email verification, not because we would otherwise need it, but the Lemmy moderation tools are 100% reactive and only operate on a 1-by-1 basis. If a spambot signs up 100 fake accounts, I have to go and individually ban each and every one of them. There's no shift+select, ban.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to be here, and Lemmy's great, and there's far less toxicity (so far). All I'm saying is, (1) there's work to do, (2) don't gloat.

That’s one complaint. And breaking them up would be fine (probably). But regulators are also eyeing breaking Google and its other businesses up. Android has long caught the eye of regulators in Europe.

(Less so in America where it has a minority of the market…)