Cory never misses.

I think both of these assumptions are wrong. I think most apple users are just people who aren’t “computer people” and want an operating system that just works to do the things they want, and are ok with paying extra to not have to worry about drivers or linux/windows issues.

Of course there are apple fanboys, but I don’t think they are the largest subset of users.

-Sent from my iPhone.

Pay 44 billion for a brand, then change it. Pure genius.

Beyond Good and Evil is this, but it’s almost 15 years old so not quite at that level of complexity.

Join Beehaw

When I lived in a top floor apartment in Melbourne, where it regularly hit 40°C without any air-conditioning (still unsure how that was and is legal to rent out), I would use a spray bottle of water and a fan to evaporatively cool myself, cold showers to lower my body heat and trips to an air-conditioned space like the cinema or shopping centre during the worst of it.

By randomly positioning logos on a chart.

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Such a hilarious show. I love how ridiculous it is.

Kobo store is probably the best competitor.

Bought them and made their games Microsoft exclusives.

o7

Thank you for saving my phone.

Have you tried the Styx series?

The second one, Styx: Shards of Darkness is quite good fun. The first one is quite dated now, from 2013, and the second one makes a lot of improvements over it, so I’d recommend skipping the first.

Hi, it’s me the author!

First of all, thanks for reading.

In the article I explain that it is not exactly what authors do, we reading and writing are an inherently human activity and the consumption and processing of massive amounts of data (far more than a human with a photographic memory could process in a hundred million lifetimes) is a completely different process to that.

I also point out that I don’t have a problem with LLMs as a concept, and I’m actually excited about what they can do, but that they are inherently different from humans and should be treated as such by the law.

My main point is that authors should have the ability to decree that they don’t want their work used as training data for megacorporations to profit from without their consent.

So, yes in a way it is about money, but the money in question being the money OpenAI and Meta are making off the backs of millions of unpaid and often unsuspecting people.

Don’t see people chomping the bit to take down other sites that have been doing this for decades.

But this hasn’t been happening for decades. Machine learning algorithms are an incredibly new way of processing data. All those scenarios you are talking about required a human to be the one doing the reading and summarising, which for most authors is fine, they expect people to read their work and summarise it, or quote it.

What they don’t expect is for that work to be fed in full into a private companies data set to train a machine how to duplicate their content at speeds completely incomparable to human capabilities. We’re talking about something completely new, completely unseen and you’re disregarding the rights of those creators to not want their art, music or writing to be fed into the endless churn of data for these megacorporations.

Also, it’s champing at the bit, not chomping.

Well, the company has the training data, so I would imagine that will be part of discovery phase of the lawsuit.

It will be a very quick case if OpenAI provides their training data and there is no data from Libgen and Z-library included in it.

I don’t think that it is even remotely close to being the same thing. I’m sorry but we shouldn’t be affording companies the ability to profit off other people’s creations without their consent, regardless of how current copyright law works.

Acting as though a human writing a summary is the same thing as a vast network of computers processing data at a speed that is hundreds if not thousands times faster than a human is foolish. Perhaps it is also foolish to try and apply our current copyright laws (which already favour large corporations and not individual creators) to this slew of new technology, but just ignoring the fundamental difference between the two is no way of going about it. We need copyright reform, we need protections for creators, and we need to stop acting as though machine learning algorithms are remotely comparable to humans both in their capabilities, responsibilities and rights.

There is a perfectly reasonable way of doing this ethically, and that is using content that people have provided to the model of their own volition with their consent either volunteered or paid for, but not scraped from an epub, regardless of if you bought it or downloaded it from libgen.

There are already companies training machine learning models ethically in this manner, and if creators do not want their content used as training data, it should not be.

Progression fantasy such as Will Wright’s Cradle series.

My main point is that if people don’t want their content used for training LLMs they should absolutely have the option to not have their content used to train LLMs.

Training databases should be ethically sourced from opt in programs, that some companies are already doing, such as Adobe.

It’s more like reading a book and then charging people to ask you questions about it.

No, it’s really nothing like reading at all. Your example requires a human element. This is just the consumption of data, not reading.

Because reading is an inherently human activity.

An LLM consuming data from a training model is not.