lkey

'Fallen far' is so so rich, when you are the misinfo peddler here.

The article you linked is irrelevant because it is about a DIFFERENT CASE.

_Authors Guild v. OpenAI_ is NOT _The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. et al._

The gall of you to act indignant about 'facts of the case'.

Even if you weren't lazy or illiterate; Mike isn't a neutral party either.

> "Of course, my biases are known: I’m quite convinced that training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, and I find the argument that slop books “dilute” non-slop books to be beyond nonsensical."

Even if you agree with Mike, OpenAI thought they could replace/dilute authors, and workers generally, as disclosed by their internal discussions.

Even if you agree with Mike that training, generally, is fair use, they did not pay for the torrented works they trained their models on, which is still illegal! This is why they shifted to buying and shredding books after they lost other lawsuits.

> 'AI bad'

Bay Area self-styled demi-gods bad, actually. Their products, like always, are incidental to their rapaciousness and their impunity from laws.

Thank God, a 'both sides'.

I was worried that OpenAI, a 1.2 trillion dollar company, would be the only party to this lawsuit that was 'bad'. Thankfully, thanks to your detective work, we have ourselves a lawyer that is also 'bad', a rare thing indeed.

Readers may be wondering if 'authors' are also bad. That's silly, they don't matter at all. This is what makes stealing from them legal (for a small fine) and profitable.

> rules for thee, but not for me

This is their theory of power, that the selected few get access to a state of exception (but you can lose it at any time, so don't slip up).

Trump and oligarchs broadly have offered this franchise to their most loyal.

But! I'd argue it is not precisely hypocrisy, because they never believed in a rules-based order in the first place. They just see a system they can exploit.

break things has always been right there in black and white.

The government already subsidizes private overproduction on US farmland. USAID was, at its heart, a farm subsidy.

And it should be said that most 'small' farmers in the US are millionaire scions and shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit in most parts of the US (we have abundant natural resources).

More than half of all calories produced in the US are not even for human consumption. And globally enough calories to feed every human on earth are lost to inefficiency each year.

We can all benefit from a better system of distribution and production without getting lost in the magical thinking of a public/private false dichotomy.

Linus [and the skilled and unpaid labour of tens of thousands of people, working together towards a shared goal and a common good]**

We could create economic systems that prioritized workers over immediate profit.

In this case, a system that aided the displaced workers in finding new positions and acquiring skills that are not simply doordashingfor rent (and still counting that as 'full employment').

In this latest disruption, highly skilled workers are being underemployed in low skill labour and we all lose out. PhD and JD to baristas and uber driver economy.

The federal funding and employment disruption alone will take decades to fix, if ever.

Anywho, you should notice when you participate in creating a massive disruption in many people's lives (to create super-profit for a couple of already wealthy men).

You are never just following orders, don't close your eyes to what you are doing with your life.

And before you 'what about' me. I have refused orders and lost jobs because of it. My only regret is not organizing with other workers beforehand.

Both versions are fancifully direct in our era a media+police stenography, try:

Mayor denounces "radical activists" rioting and damaging city property in response to an officer-involved incident that resulted in one fatal kinetic altercation with a "loud and provocatively dressed" man.

You're right, America didn't intentionally engineer the death of millions until after the war, when it became the undisputed global superpower.

...If you choose to intentionally ignore slavery in the American South, Convict Leasing, and Jim Crow.

see also what the CIA got up to in Indonesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...

And in your living memory: Vietnam, Korea, the vile shit we did to Haiti and Chile, the 'Banana Republics', Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, unconditionally supporting Israel and the Gulf States various war crimes and genocides, etc...

And of course, most recently, the sudden and complete excision of life-saving aid to children in Africa, leaving the world's most vulnerable to starve.

And also the total embargo on Cuba, to ensure starvation, with the intention of conquest, resource extraction, and collective punishment.

but God forbid someone on a message board tarnish the US's sterling reputation (relative to some of history's worst) during WWII.

Christ, just say you are conservative and don't like unions and their political stances. 'Accuracy' doesn't matter at all when it comes to assessing harm, but the existence of a market signal itself can change outcomes, and then much vaunted 'accuracy' becomes a mechanism for fraud in a new and different way.

Even taking your nitpick a little bit seriously, behold:

> Retail prediction market traders pick winners 51.3% of the time yet lose money; automated traders achieve coin-flip accuracy yet earn $133 million.

The entire enterprise exists to move money from gamblers to companies. The externalities (suicide, social degradation) of this transaction is bourne by society.

There is significant evidence against this, and very little for it beyond your 'honest opinion'.

A recent study showed just 2 out of tens of thousands of children in China improved their performance after beginning to use AI assistance.

People will take the shortcut in front of them, absent enforcement, and this is how it works in work and in school. Putting it onto any individual to 'use it well' is to misunderstand the system that is being constructed.

They will be teaching AI in high school. This ban is only for the lower grades.

Even when they teach it, screen time will be limited to 45 minutes per week.

It's not about 'passion against AI', it's a year waiting period. There isn't much evidence that AI improves student outcomes, and there's more cases showing harm, so the responsible approach is to wait for more information.

Also, they've banned phone use for quite a while now, which I think most people agree is correct in a learning env.

Standard single payer insurance is not identical to 'seize total control of ever living body in America'. I shouldn't have to point this out.

The attempts by the current republican admin to seize control of certain 'illegal' bodies has caused so so much harm, I'd agree there. But even operating at 10x the nominal level of the past and ICE still haven't been able to exert temporary control over a single American city that resisted them, much less everyone in America.

You should figure out specifically what you are scared of and deal with that, rather than catastrophizing about things that cannot physically happen on any near timeframe.

You may have no memory of it, but there was a time when many American corporations had different, broader values. The structure of the present is not necessary or inevitable.

Spirit of Capital Accumulation be praised!

May 'annual profit' continue to be the only measure that has mattered, does matter, or will ever matter to those that bask in the radiance of perpetual earning growth!

American police have no obligation to protect, serve, or tell the truth. The police steal more money than all petty thieves every year.

Qualified immunity makes accountability a distant mirage.

The police operate exactly as they are allowed and encouraged, by the system they labor within, to behave.

Your words 'sloppy' and 'error' imply that a 'careful, correct' approach fixes these ills. History and experience shows us that this hypothetical good will not be produced until laws and incentives more broadly, change.

You created an account for this?

Manipulating children to get them addicted or push them deeper into a fatal mental illness (like anorexia) for profit is the same thing tobacco companies did and society responded in much the same way.

There's a consistent pattern of people 'solving' a minority population's 'problems' without ever looking at what problems they actually have.

I have 'solid evidence' from my time in industry where heedlessly pursuing 'innovation' got companies (including my own) sued back into compliance with the ADA. Along with deserved lost contracts and managerial beheadings.

Higher profile examples of TED talk 'innovation' killing 'the good' would be the proposed CA 'hyperloop' talk, white paper, and project scuttling high-speed rail investment for another decade plus.

What are your bona fides now that you've brought up your familiarity with both perfection and good?

Contributing to a net loss of funding and attention, all while making the public more ignorant and more passive, results in material harms to the population they claim to serve.

This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.

> If it can be controlled then it will concentrate power like never before, and I believe this will destabilise civilisation.

We already live in a reality with unprecedented concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few. This process has produced horrific violence and ended civilization for tens of millions.

The actual impact of AI, so far, has been redistributive upwards (solely through speculation, not via productivity or displacement).

This kind of problem is a standard human social ill. Its solution is social too.

Redistributive economic and political action can equalize power and wealth disparity. AI is incidental in this story.

Your understanding of AI as an isolated perfected intellectual djinn lacks a consideration of the existing and ever-changing labour and social relations that give AI responses meaning in the first place.

It is a compressed, multi dimensional manifold containing the structure of relations between objects. Responses are a reification of a point in that space.

Navigating the space can be interesting, but it is a poor substitute for the relations themselves.

Very few people yearn for the endless, frictionless solipsism silicon valley promises (AI + slave robots), and those that do are overrepresented in your social circles. The books they write are a study in psychological projection and limited political education.

> I've been writing endless comments more recently urging people worrying about their jobs/careers to stop and just spend the next few years with those they love.

This is good advice generally. But it isn't organizing. Join something, meet up, drink bad coffee, listen, take notes, advocate to fix just one bad thing in your community, feel your impact reverberate through the world, and then notice how much easier it is to shake off despair.

If you don't have a community, then no wonder everything feels like its ending.

Advocating for nuclear war as a means of 'harm reduction' should be causing you serious cognitive dissonance.

There are dozens of escalating, yet fundamentally less destructive means to prevent a data centers from continuing to operate (if that's the goal). Not starting at those more modest interventions is political malpractice and in opposition to your harm reduction narrative.

Your P(doom) 'probability estimates' are almost certainly based on unbounded exponential growth curves.

Nature abhors such things; I don't make any plans around their existence, and you shouldn't either. Limiting factors always emerge and dominate the curve, tamping it to a logistic at most.

Get involved with real politics by organizing with other human beings that share your values (posting alone and doomsaying is not praxis), or step back from tech and cherish the limited time you have with the people you love.

I did not, I read kypro's (the OP I was replying to) bio, to whit:

Every problem is a search problem. Nuke the data centers.

P(doom) = 98.9% (Aug-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (July-2026) P(doom) = 98.2% (Jun-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (May-2026) P(doom) = 98.8% (mid-April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (April-2026) P(doom) = 98.7% (March-2026) P(doom) = 98.5% (mid-Feb-2026) P(doom) = 97% (Feb-2026) P(doom) = 94% (Jan-2026) P(doom) = 93% (Dec-2025) P(doom) = 95% (July-2025)

It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war. (which is what the grandparent commenter's bio contemplates, 'nuke the datacenters' is their central credo).

Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away are the same people that have profited most handsomely from that pronouncement?

That the 'humanists' that want to do 'altruism' for 'potential future humans' and are the same people that commit fraud and theft at a civilizational scale, then sell this 'intelligence' to any child-incinerating militaries with spare cash?

It's not wrong to want to do good, but if a system that is branded 'do (the most) good' commits great evils, you are morally and intellectually obligated to step back and reconsider how you are spending your time.

Also, I asked a chicken and a feral rock dove what it's like to be not be 'apex' and they burbled at me and kept eating millet and sunflower seeds.

Would you like me to follow up with them? I'm not sure what point you expected them to make.

Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up?

And you accuse the 'other side' of 'suicidal apathy'??

You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.

You don't accept it is possible that it was initially flagged as a dupe or spam why? There is competition for primary submission here, especially for the primary AI companies.

Moreover, if it wasn't flagged at all, like you suggest, then the grandparent was inventing things to be bitterly resentful about... Which is not a behavior any forum should indulge.

Forums change with the times, and this one never existed solely to burnish your ego.

Moreover, mister elite, you don't know why this press release was flagged.

I'm not sure why we should privilege your bitter speculation over more mundane possibilities.

I think it's a difference of reading levels.

AI 'writing' makes me ill, but that's happening because I can 'feel' the prose's samey hollowness in every paragraph.

But! If someone is just moving word by word and is focussed on just the gist (the average reading level is '6th grade' here in the states), then it will not repel them the way it does us. Also, AI's grammar is impeccable, if bizarre, and the word choices can be facially erudite, so that might also be mistaken as a signal for competence where none exists.

I am not surprised. I'm aware that the US never adopted:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

You have stated an unfortunate fact while hiding your value judgement. Do you think the laws you reference are correct, or no?

Do you understand the difference between having a responsibility to prevent your child from law-breaking and having absolute control over their life in general?

If you have children, or plan to, do you want to control every action they take to protect yourself from hypothetical legal consequence? Do you think you have the right to do so? Do you think you should be able to control what they think and express as well?

These questions are not hypothetical, as an answer in the affirmative is precisely what creates the type of abuse I described above.

"becoming an adult" is a thing people do, this will include no longer agreeing with everything your parents taught you. This is mundane and what you have described.

"my parents are/were abusive" is something a plurality of people (and especially those raised in evangelical churches) experience.

Within that dynamic, the 'value' at issue here is 'Do I, your child, have a right to my own body and choices?'; Too often, the reply to that is 'no, we expect obedience and obeisance to God, your father, and your mother, in that exact order, because that is the one true way'.

This is a form of domination, not well-meaning 'protection'. It does, in fact, 'mess people up', in their intimate relationships most of all.

The article calls another entity exerting its right of free association 'censorship'. This too is signaling a certain set of values.

Even Immoral and Amoral companies serve values that others might consider 'baggage'.

Palantir worshipping death and war has caused their civilian contracts to suffer and languish. This is baggage; It may be their own death knell.

'(amorally) maximizing shareholder value (for the next quarter)' is (for me) an insane value system on its face, and makes problems for everyone around them, yet who argue like you are here don't see that as 'personal baggage' at all.

It's a conflict of core values, and you've demonstrated it here.

You have defined success (for a project, and possibly a person too) as solely 'relevance'.

Jarred would agree with you wholeheartedly, I imagine. Andrew would ask you to leave.

It's okay to have different values and part ways.

It's not wise, however, to project your personal values onto other people, and judge them on those fabricated merits. You'll end up frustrated and confused more often than not.

Judge their choice of values. Judge them on their alignment with their chosen values.

As an example, Andrew doesn't like Jarred's chosen 'Silicon Valley' values, but thinks that Jarred aligns himself well with those values. This feels as a personal attack to you who also holds those values. And on some level, a person intimating you core values suck couldn't be more personal.