I know my way around the Jolly Roger myself. At the same time using copyrighted materials in a commercial setting (as OpenAI does) shouldn’t be free.
Eatspancakes84
joined 2 years ago
I am also not really getting the argument. If I as a human want to learn a subject from a book I buy it ( or I go to a library who paid for it). If it’s similar to how humans learn, it should cost equally much.
The issue is of course that it’s not at all similar to how humans learn. It needs VASTLY more data to produce something even remotely sensible. Develop AI that’s truly transformative, by making it as efficient as humans are in learning, and the cost of paying for copyright will be negligible.
Fully disagree. Xi is sacrificing the (economic ) wellbeing of his citizens at the altar of stricter repressive policies on its own population, and international power games. Corruption is running rampant there’s a massive real estate bubble, the population is aging quicker than in the west and I don’t think he has the ability to fix these issues, because he takes growth for granted.
Oh I mean, I am cynical as well. First about whether she’ll push through. Second, about congress agreeing. Just pointing out that the discussion on the rate is not so important.
Yes, but no. Yes if you sell your asset at a gain you pay taxes. However, if you don’t realize your gain and instead use your asset as a collateral in a loan, you don’t pay taxes. That’s why the rich pay no taxes whatsoever. For instance, Bezos has 2 bln in outstanding loans. As a collateral he uses his 200 bln share in Amazon. He never pays taxes.
The proposal by Harris would fix this and tax gains prior to realization. If she succeeds that is a much bigger deal than whether the rate is 20,30 or 40 percent.
The much bigger question is whether Harris will succeed in taxing unrealized capital gains (as her campaign plans). Currently all the gains of the very rich are unrealised meaning they don’t pay any taxes. It doesn’t even matter if the rate is 22 percent or 40 percent. I actually really like Harris’ proposal of first fixing the system before hiking the rates
Just to add, a healthy democracy has a first and second round where the second round has only 2 candidates.
Absolutely, but also when you consider ethical challenges (copyright, livelihood of artists), sustainability challenges (energy use) etc. The use cases that you describe are not nearly as controversial as LLMs like ChatGPT.
The current generation of data hungry AI models with energy requirements of a small country should be replaced ASAP, so if copyright laws spur innovation in that direction I am all for it.
Things will yet change, and they’ll change for the worse. All of the media prefer a close race. There will be October surprises and even if they’re complete BS, the few swing voters that will finally start tuning in, will once again conclude that both parties are the same. Anyway, what I am trying to say is, don’t believe the polls. Vote
Legalising cannabis is a slippery slope towards abolishing the DEA, which would be very detrimental… to the people working at the DEA that is.
Another good question is why AIs do not mindlessly regurgitate source material. The reason is that they have access to so much copyrighted material. If they were trained on only one book, they would constantly regurgitate material from that one book. Because it’s trained on many (millions) books, it’s able to get creative. So the argument of OpenAI really boils down to: “we are not breaking copyright law, because we have used sufficient copyrighted material to avoid directly infringing on copyright”.