0x3f

You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.

But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification. If merely quoting the law is enough, then great, we already justified perfectly the copyright and jailing weed smokers stuff. It's only now that you changed tack to make a different argument, which... I mean I might disagree with or not, but it's not what I took issue with above.

> Should is an opinion.

Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.

You understand that this is an entirely different form of argument than just linking to statute or case law.

America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist

Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument...

Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.

Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is.

> Sure, as long as it is within the framework of the law.

You mean, like the one in the article the GP is pretending not to understand?

No I just mean in the sense that I give over the rights to my own words. I can't repeat them outside of the context that I've agreed to. They were both examples of the same kind of agreement. They'll keep those rights well after I'm dead, by the way.

It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it.

Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR.

Nobody forced her to break her contract and thus come up against that. She would have been perfectly fine on the leftovers from ~$500k/y while searching for her next job. The parent makes out like she simply had to get the extra money, lest she starve to death. Which is patently ridiculous.

I'm not the one making a positive claim. I haven't even claimed such rights exist so why on earth would be the expectation be that I list them? You've assumed that I believe in this shared fiction.

We sell ourselves into a form of slavery every day. Some would argue that is a big driver of our current society and way of life.

Please enumerate these inaliable basic freedoms that I should not be able to deal in.

So I can't sign an exclusive book deal? Or write for a newspaper?

I think you'll find the person in question's title is quite far from content moderator.

As if Meta employees live on the cusp of starving.

What are 'basic freedoms'?

> I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws.

What's to understand? Person agrees to thing. Person is held to thing.

I'm not sure these are functionally any different. Perhaps not caring is required to achieve certain goals.

That's... almost every AI paper.

Haven't read the paper yet, but it is interesting how seemingly simple many breakthroughs in ML are. Even transformers are like that. Maybe it's hindsight bias.

I suppose we just don't have a deeper underlying theory to lean on and help us 'design' anything.

Yeah as much as I avoid OpenAI for [reasons], the Rust TUI was really the move. Claude Code is a mess.

There's no way it was entirely written by Claude Code. But even if it were, collections and databases can be protected even if their individual elements are not.

Oh no, not 0.2% of their valuation! The end is near for Anthropic. Humanity is saved. By the copyright lobby, of all people.

The public is almost fully to blame, and gets the government it deserves. I only hedge a little because education is in control of the state, so to some degree people don't choose whether to be educated on the relevant matters.

It may be familiarity breeding contempt but I find members of the British public in particular very myopic in obtaining benefits for 'their group'. There's very little interest in society as a whole.

Politicians simply bend in order not to upset any of the key voting blocs. But you understand that's a selection bias: you wouldn't exist as a successful politician if you didn't do this. All those who go another path are doomed to obscurity.

If you use the [company name]@yourdomain.com form, people who work at [company name] often say "wow, you work for [company name]??"

No, why would they care about using pirated PDFs? Did you actually read/understand what I wrote? Violating their customers comes with risk for them. Violating the copyright of unrelated texbook authors does not. If that's even what they did.

More training data at this point leads to marginal improvements, curve is flattening. So advantage is low. Especially when Anthropic definitely has the budget and talent to carry out the same study.

On the other hand, having it leak that you train on your customers data, ignoring the opt-out, is probably existential when close alternatives exist in the market.

Only if you assume they don't honor their enterprise agreements.

If we assume they are on quotas then what difference does technology make? They had quotas before the technology, qualified immunity too. 100 false arrests with no recourse are 100 false arrests with no recourse.

If anything I would expect technology favors the victim of false arrest because it gives the cop a face-saving get out. Previously, a cop who false-arrested you would have been incentivized to take it all the way, because you getting justice for it is intrinsically tied to impugning their word and/or reputation.