JAlexoid

If they can't keep up, that means that they're not using AI to do reviews

Starting Pixel 8(including 8a) the support window is 7y for those devices.

I had to upgrade my 2021 iPad 9gen to a newer model to actually make is reasonably usable.

So I am not sure about recent track record for Apple.

My 2021 Pixel 6 works well for my mother and is getting updates.

Have you never heard of this derogative term?

Plenty of arrogant Americans use that term

If you put 90% of the electronics into the cartridge and the printer box is just a paper feeder - that's not exactly surprising.

You couldn't, mostly because Bell Labs is owned by Nokia now.

Even being stored in EU doesn't preclude your data from being targeted by signals intelligence. Which is different than requiring US based companies to provide non-US data to American government.

Does fastmail have a US presence? If no - then they're not bound at all by US jurisdiction.

I agree. Operating systems have become too fast.

It reads like you're in favor of banning resale and lending(aka libraries) of books... because the authors aren't compensated.

There's such a thing as fair use and digitizing privately owned printed material is absolutely legal... including for corporations.

You seem to think that AI companies sell you content, which is false.

You get a service. The service is using their compute power to run a model and their scientists to build the model.

Long story short - publishing houses are venture capital firms.

Most of their investments fail miserably, but they only need one Google/Stephen King.

Since we're on the criminal side - what criminal statute would apply to Anthropic? And what criminal statutes were used for the cases we're supposed to compare to?

Infringement is a civil lawsuit, with financial punishment only.

Maybe because Anthropic isn't actively facilitating copyright infringement?..

I used to use the initial letters of a whole paragraph from Lord of The Rings as my password.

Some of us have a good enough memory.

You're not understanding this.

A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.

The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.

You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.

We're talking about a layman. Not to mention that different genres have different quality of AI music.

I would easily recognize AI generated orchestra, while I can bet a lot of money that AI generated EDM is hard to distinguish from something created in a DAW

You're absolutely right.

They can just come up with a few thousand dollars per hour for a few hours per song. Everyone has a few thousand dollars just lying around

Because AI music can be still valuable.

People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.

We have a lot of pop-slop, now it's AI slop.

There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)

AI generated music is good, the singing (vocals and lyrics) is typically very bad.

AI generated music is also not at all original. Which scares all of the "artists" who lack originality.

I think we underestimate how much of reading happens from the shallow romance section of the bookstores.

It's big business and is really not that deep. For someone who isn't part of that world(which is big business) to judge what is good or not is hard.

And now it's cheap to produce that "pulp romance" novels en masse. So people who have little clue about this genre can produce something that seems good, but doesn't appeal to the reader.

AFIK: Even the slightest modification of the work is transformative and will produce copyrighted material.

It does not have to be substantial transformation.

Unfortunately you did grant that permission. Once you granted the permission for someone to hold a copy, they have the permission to process it.

I can assure you, that you didn't grant a license with an exclusive list of operations that can be performed on your work of art. At best you may have had something like "no commercial use" clause and general broad terms.

Charging for a service isn't rent-seeking.

Funny thing is that building an LLM isn't as complex as you might think.

But the problem of attribution is easily understandable to any human with a modicum of intelligence.

Imagine that you have a trillion input images, with every single one having a source associated. When training they go through lots of processes and every single image contributes a varying degree to a subset of 8billion parameters. That alone would produce a dataset that is 1T * 8B to just say how much a particular image contributed to the output...

To mimic intelligence the output is also randomized - the association is not static and every single pixel in the output has it's own lineage.

So as you can probably imagine that to calculate the actual source weights on the output you'd require to do at least 8e+21 calculations per output pixel... and require double precision floating point while you do it.

We know how to do it. It's just ridiculously expensive.

(The above example is for demonstrative purposes only)

I don't believe that you require to do much to claim copyright over an output of an LLM. The input prompt is under copyright - a simple modification to the source code will grant copyright to you.

Software is considered a complete piece of work. Therefore as long as you modify a single character - that whole product is under your copyright.

The only problem that people see in these models is the money flows.

If it all was non-profit - then no one would raise the ethical issue.

Currently it's mostly to pay for running and training the models.