I don’t care if it’s expensive or difficult. If somebody wants copyrighted content to train an ai, buy the rights to it before creating these derivative works based on it
I think the bigger issue is trust. The chat it is no longer trying to return objective information. “OpenAI” is letting companies pay to have it promote their content—is that accurate?
I don't think that follows. If ChatGPT tells me that two masses attract one another via gravity, that's objective information regardless of whether it uses a statistical process to produce it out of training data or contacts an oracle to directly query the divine will of the gods. LLMs don't always return objective information, but they typically do.
People shouldn’t be profiled based on what they watch or read. Are we going so say that couldn’t video games are evidence that somebody is going to go commit violence next? What if you’re into spy movies? Crime documentaries? Weird reality tv shows?
I read all kinds of non fiction things I won’t even list here but I seem to be a perfectly boring member of society. It’s just interesting subject matter
When the authorities catch up to you, you are definitely going to be treated differently if you have bags packed, tickets booked, and a bunch of books on how to evade the police versus being on your volunteer shift at the local soup kitchen. Getting caught fleeing speaks poorly to your character if you don't have a good reason or have already been told to not leave town by the cops.
If they had contacted a defense attorney, does that also speak poorly to their character and should be held against them? Certainly that's something a criminal who knew they were guilty would do.
It’s not profiling as the book was collected as evidence after being charged with a crime and with a search warrant (or at least probably cause must be established with other evidence). Profiling would be using information about such a book before crimes were committed or charged.
In addition, such evidence is important in establishing bail, as risk of fleeing is of primary concern.
Apply that to other situations though. Those sorts of books are ordinary. If you used that sort of profiling after the fact on everyone, you could make anyone look suspicious or untrustworthy
Witch hunters during the inquisition literally used to do this sort of thing to help condemn people
You are absolutely correct! Law enforcement should not in any circumstance be allowed to go through someone's library of books that are publicly available and then try to tie in one of those books with the fact that they've committed a crime. That is the problem, like many people in this feed they are totally oblivious of how much illegal control and power they are giving the authorities. Interestingly though, my gut tells me that they didn't even find that book that that book may have been planted as evidence against them. We live in a world where police are always getting busted on social media for lying in deception. We can no longer sit back and assume that they are doing the right thing behind closed doors. I don't believe for one minute that they found the book I think that was their way of adding a layer so that they could later charge the people.
If we don't fight this type of stuff now, our lives As Americans in the future lives of the next generations literally will not even be worth living!!!
> In one of their bags packed for their flight, there was a book titled “Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive The System,” the papers say.
You sensibly mention that this was not brought up until after the warranted search. But why is this title being mentioned now? Is the suggestion that someone who’s been charged with a crime should not attempt to read up on his rights—that doing so is a black mark suggesting flight risk? If the other book, on disappearing, is derogatory in itself, then why bring up this book too?
I'd guess that it speaks to the "knew charges were coming" bit to support that they were specifically fleeing the law and not disappearing to escape a bookie or an annoying family member or something
As a content creator, where can you even go and what can you do to get an audience these days that doesn’t surrender everything you make to be used to train ais to replace you?
The past. At least pre-Spotify, before that particular rot essentially took the business model of piracy and added a veneer of legitimacy which eroded the already tenuous economics of recorded music into afterthoughts in the common case and fractional microtransactions in the best.
Or since copyright & the arts tend to make tech discourse stupid, we could turn our attention to the vampiric nature of food delivery and rideshares where we can also observe the tendency to not merely build platforms and work on experience but also look for places where labor/service costs can be opaquely externalized and investment can be used to subsidize anticompetitive pricing and lower wages.
Once that die was cast, of course it was inevitable that most platforms were going to go digital vampire on creators.
The other place we could go is law & policy -- really, the idea that training is "fair use" is wrong. High scale automated training can't be fair use, fair use was created well before HSAT was even conceptualized let alone possible. The law should be that every training use should require explicit use-specific opt-in, with consideration. Every other training use of a copyright claimed work should be an infringement.
Without that, there is no place to go that doesn't surrender everything to digital vampirism, and there never will be.
> Or since copyright & the arts tend to make tech discourse stupid
Oh, you can say that again. Software engineers are often amazingly small-minded, and as a software engineer, it took me quite awhile to realize that.
> The other place we could go is law & policy -- really, the idea that training is "fair use" is wrong.
Especially since that idea that "AI" training is fair use is little more than a vigorous assertion by interested parties that hope to profit from it, and rests on self-serving false equivalencies.
Science itself would have been considered a form of intellectual misconduct at one point. It would be important to be very careful here with definitions and scope, Eg, limiting it to fake data
It’s not financially worthwhile for most third party developers to develop apps for a platform with too few users. Not sure how the iPhone originally did it, that seems pretty amazing to me.
But yeah, need a product to drive up adoption so a healthy ecosystem can form around it… so they can capture 30% of it
It was crystal clear that the iPhone was going to be a huge thing. An AR/VR headset is much less clear. I think it's only slightly clearer than mud at this point. Apple does have a history of trying to force things on the industry that went over like lead balloons. The VisionPro could be the next trashcan MacPro, or it could be the next hotness after building from a slow burn. Apple never released an updated trashcan, but they are looking at the next headset. So that's a signal in and of itself
Right. Probably not the original plan, but as people have pointed out, the Vision Pro has landed as essentially a dev kit.
What’s the point of dev kit 2 when there still aren’t a lot of regular users?
(Seems tough though. Even if you can keep all the key parts of the Vision Pro at a $1500-$1600 price - that’s got to be very hard — will that be enough? I guess we’ll find out.)
The iPhone did it by being essentially an iPod Touch that could make calls. Lots of people were already familiar with iPod and iPod Touch, so when it turned into the first programmable phone, it was novel and exciting, and then the gold rush took off when people started making money and it grew from there.
Yeah it was "essentially" a mobile phone that people already understood the value of, particularly because of Blackberry, so it was a potentially improved mobile phone given its touchscreen and interface. It was also a much better iPod and a web browser alongside. The iPod touch came much later.
The first wave of iPhone development was done by solo developers. This seeded the market with apps and created the ecosystem. Then the larger more expensive apps moved in to harvest all those sweet customers.
