Except it isnt, because the judge dismissed that part of the suit, saying that people have complete right to digitise and train on works they have a legitimate copy of. So those damages are for making the unauthorised copy, per book.

And it is not STEALING as you put it, it is making an unauthorised copy, no one loses anything from a copy being made, if I STEAL your phone you no longer have that phone. I do find it sad how many people have drunk the capitalist IP maximalist stance and have somehow convinced themselves that advocating for Disney and the publishing cartel being allowed to dictate how people use works they have is somehow sticking up for the little guy

You think that 150,000 dollars, or roughly 180 weeks of full time pretax wages at 15$ an hour, is a reasonable fine for making a copy of one book which doe no material harm to the copyright holder?

The problem isnt anthropic get to use that defense, its that others dont. The fact the the world is in a place where people can be fined 5+ years of a western European average salary for making a copy of one (1) book that does not materially effect the copyright holder in any way is insane and it is good to point that out no matter who does it.

Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe.

No, if another 100k Australians had come out and then kept protesting day in day out for weeks/months they would have got the aus government to back down and not support the war.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

I’m not a huge fan of Ed Zitron generally, he leans towards histrionic too much for my tastes, but he makes a compelling case here.

I’m pretty sure that in 100 years time people will look back at the current age of social media with the same kind of horror as we get looking back at doctors recommending cigarettes for weight loss.

Because he’s speaking to a British newspaper about British policies. I’m assuming the second part as I don’t subscribe to the times so cant read the article, but there are currently plans in place in the UK to introduce an opt-out framework for people to remove permission for training on their work, with pushback from big names that want to charge rent on their old works, so I assume that is the subject.

Even if he wasn’t talking about the UK at all (which I think it is clear he is from context) my larger point still stands, the choice isn’t between stopping AI and allowing AI, its between allowing AI companies to operate in your jurisdiction or AI being trained elsewhere that is out of your control. There is no option for “stop this entirely”, unless you can persuade the USA and China at the very least to sign up to it. Which they wont.

The bit you’re missing is that the choice isnt between killing AI and killing the music industry, its between killing AI in the UK or pissing off IP holders somewhat. Do you think China give a fuck who’s IP they use in training models, or that they will stop if the UK passes a law making artists default out of using their work as training data?

Its a godsend when you have to use Windows for whatever reason and you can have a functional OS to do things with.

I hope you dont play video games or stream HD video, given that they use more electricity for less social benefit than this would.

And unless you are Stephan King or the like exactly how are you going to get the publishing cartel (I think they re consolidated downs to 3-4 publishers now) to change their contract to not include this? Their response will almost certainly be either “that’s non-negotiable” or “ok then you get half as much money”.

As much as you can hold a computer manufacturer responsible for buggy software.

When I did my undergrad the core modules had upwards of 400 people in them, never had a single multiple choice test in my entire degree. Thats a choice not a neccessity.

He could see AI being used more immediately to address certain “low-hanging fruit,” such as checking for application completeness. “Something as trivial as that could expedite the return of feedback to the submitters based on things that need to be addressed to make the application complete,” he says. More sophisticated uses would need to be developed, tested, and proved out.

Oh no, the dystopian horror…

Its a shit article with Tech crunch changing the words to get people in a flap about AI (for or against), the actual quote is

“I’d say maybe 20 percent, 30 percent of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software”

“Written by software” reasonably included machine refactored code, automatically generated boilerplate and things generated by AI assistants. Through that lens 20% doesnt seem crazy.

Git is, but it has no process of discovery or hosting by itself. Those are needed to efficiently share open source software to large numbers of people.

10% to 80% seems like too wide a range for your range of “how many are on the largest instance” 10% means only 1 in ten users are on the largest instance and 9/10 are spread out on the rest, If anything that seems overly fragmented. On the other end 80% means 4/5 users are on the largest instance and 1/5 are shared between all other instances which is incredibly concentrated.

I’d sugest narrowing the range to 20% to 66%, 1 in 5 on the largest instance is still plenty dispersed to ensure that there is competition/variety and 2 in 3 users on the largest instance is already well into monopoly territory.

As per the article:

It uses high frequency radio waves to disrupt or damage critical electronic components inside drones, causing them to crash or malfunction.

Its not jamming the comms, its inducing currents inside the electronics of the drone to fry them.

I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison, babies exist with images and sounds for over a year before they begin to learn language, so it would make sense that they begin to understand the world in non-linguistic terms and then apply language to that. LLMs only exist in relation to language so couldnt understand a concept separately to language, it would be like asking a person to conceptualise radio waves prior to having heard about them.