staticman2

Replying again to say this article appears to directly address similar cases:

https://perkinscoie.com/insights/blog/does-copyright-law-pre...

It seems courts are split:

"In jurisdictions that follow the Second Circuit's more restrictive approach, plaintiffs may be limited to bringing copyright infringement claims when the scope of license terms or other contractual restrictions on the use of works has been exceeded. Plaintiffs who do not own or control the copyright interest in the licensed work, however, will not be able to bring such claims and may be left without an enforcement mechanism under traditional contracting approaches."

>>There is no provision of copyright law that limits terms of contracts covering AI outputs.

This isn't how legal reasoning works in a common law system... to discover the answer you usually find the most similar case to the current fact pattern and then compare it to the current issue.

If you are aware of such a case, even colluqually, point me in the right direction. It might be hard to analogize to another cases though, because Anthropic doesn't have a license for most of the training materials that made their model. I've also read you can't contract around a fair use defense.

If I'm wrong it isn't very helpful to shout "na uh" without further explanation. Give me some search engine keywords and I'll look up whatever you point me towards.

"They don't need copyright ownership of the AI output to make part of the conditions for using their software running on their servers (API access) an agreement not to use it training a competing AI model."

You are missing the point.

Copyright law and the copyright act, not general contract law, governs whether a contract provision relating to AI output can be enforced by Anthropic, and since copyright law says Anthropic has no copyright in the output, Anthropic will not win in court.

It's not different than if Anthropic included a provision saying you won't print out the text of Moby Dick. Anthropic doesn't own copyright on Moby Dick and can't enforce a contract provision related to it.

Like I said I can be convinced I'm wrong based on a legal analysis from a neutral party but you seem to be arguing from first principles.

Nobody was asking if Anthropic can ban OpenAI. I believe they were asking if the contract that can ban using the output to train an AI would hold up in court.

And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output. I don't believe you can enforce copyright related contracts without copyright ownership.

I could be wrong of course, but I find it odd this topic comes up from time to time but apparently nobody has a blog post by a lawyer or similar to share on this issue.

Here's an anecdote:

I've read that the original Fraggle Rock was the last major puppet TV production that didn't use computers to supplement the puppetry by hiding the strings.

I'm sure the newer Fraggle rock and other newer Muppet shows have impressive puppetry but the viewer is further removed from the actual craft since the image is computer enhanced.

Yeah... that's why I install Everything to have a third party search backup app.

My sense is this has been a problem for a long time and Microsoft presumably just doesn't care.

I know open air urinals used to exist in Amsterdam in my lifetime- I don't know if they still exist or not.

I'm pretty sure the idea was drunk men were going to urinate in public on the street no matter what the authorities did so they might as well be directed to a urinal.

Do these drivers not put cameras in their vehicles?

I'm having a hard time imagining how this topic of conversation would even come up?

>The false belief that there were fewer female aspies was pervasive, for example, and that was troublesome for many girls.

I'm gonna push back on this. There isn't an objective way to diagnose someone with autism like there is with, say, a vitamin B deficiency.

What we do know is the medical community continues to diagnose boys with this condition at a much higher rate than girls.

This would not appear to imply a "false" belief.

I can't guarantee it hasn't been patched- it's not like I frequently boot the Deck when the Internet is down but my network is running- but this reddit thread describes the problem though it seems the existence of a network but no Internet may not have been the trigger, any lack of Internet may have killed it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamDeck/comments/ynxson/possible_...

As I recall I also hadn't used my Deck for a while.

Microsoft bought the Call of Duty studios for a lot of money and likes to say they are succeeding at video games by pointing to Call of Duty revenue in a vacuum without counting the cost to aquire Activision.

They certainly aren't going to stop releasing Call of Duty games.

I've had a lot of weird issues with my early model Steam Deck from 2022.

I'd be interested in knowing how these later devices do in basic usability issues like will the device freeze for 30 minutes if booted when your internet is down but your network is up and it can't confirm your Steam credentials on startup.

Will switching inputs on an HDTV result in the dock needing to be disconnected and reconnected before you get a video signal? Etc.

You're right about Switch but the other context is one of the Matrix directors said the original idea for The Matrix was a trans metaphor.

Somehow this became "the Matrix is a trans metaphor" to people with poor media literacy skills.

There was also an unfinished plot thread in The Matrix Online that a woman who emerged from a coma at the same time Neo died may or may not be a reincarnated Neo. This story setup was never concluded or followed up on.

"Fans were quick to note that "Sarah Edmontons" is an anagram for "Thomas Anderson," leading many players to believe Neo may have been reborn as Sarah after dying."

https://www.cbr.com/the-matrix-resurrections-online-female-n...

Gibson tweeted about Tron a while back and said this which I had interpreted as suggesting an infuuence:

"Tron nostalgia: When I was writing Neuromancer, that was the bleeding-edge digital aesthetic. Those sparse green lines! Pong, meet Case."

It's not that you have to pay everyone with the same idea, it's that it opens you up to claims you copied fanfiction writers you never copied.

If I somehow recreated Lord of the Rings from scratch, without having known about Lord of the Rings, it wouldn't be copyright infringement because I never copied Lord of the Rings.

The issue is nobody would ever believe me when I said I coincidentally recreated Lord of the Rings from scratch. The court would conclude I copied Tolkien's books without permission.

If you admit to reading fanfiction, it reduces your credibility when you claim you independently came up with the same ideas as fanfiction authors.

This increases your litigation risk, but there's no black or white rule that you need to pay every fanfiction author or anything like that.

I'm not the grandparent but the more interesting question is what could possibly constitute "supporting evidence" for an AI Doom scenario.

Depending on your viewpoint this could range from "a really compelling analogy" to "A live demonstration akin to the trinity nuclear test."

Xbox has been a declining brand for a while now.

They are struggling to make the case for buying games from the Windows Store instead of Steam and they are struggling to make the case to buy an Xbox Console instead of a Sony or Nintendo Console.

If we see Xbox branded PCs in the living room- that's more a sign of pivoting due to failure than anything else.

The grandparent asked what money was in it for rationalists.

You're saying an AI researcher selling AI Doom books can't be profiting off hype about AI?

The Meriam-webster dictionary definition number 4 for couple is an indefinite small number: few.

I remember being confused as a kid what the difference is between a couple and a few. Turns out sometimes there is no difference.

Someone in 2000 would not have done your proposed strategy unless they could name 100 .com like tech companies from 1975 that, if you had invested $1 million dollars in, would have returned 24% over the previous 25 years.

If the idea is just look at what worked 25 years ago, the 2000 investor would probably have followed a different approach.

As I said your interpretation of the first link was implausible and I wasn't going to click on a second.

I'm not sure why anybody other than a social security acturiarian would care about the children per woman rate.

More on point is:

"Some 86% of women ages 40 to 44 are mothers, compared with 80% in 2006, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data." That was as of 2018 and the first link that came up.

Clearly men and women are still making babies. This number if accurate is actually surprisingly high.

"Boys didn't USED to do poorly in school."

Yes, who can forget the good old days when teachers would say to boys, to paraphrase Futurama:

"I give your assignment the worst grade imaginable-- an A-minus-minus!"

>When boys are held back at twice the rate of girls,

So when a boy does well in school we should conclude actually they are female, because schools are designed so only girls do well, because this "battle of the sexes" framework is the best way to view failures in our educational system?

I enjoyed reading your take on modern dating but I always find takes like this confusing in a "Did men and women stop making babies and I didn't notice?" Sort of way.

I've attempted to answer this puzzlement myself and PEW research says:

"Some age groups have a higher share of singles than others. Adults under 30 are the most likely age group to be single, with roughly half (47%) falling into this category. In contrast, 30- to 49-year-olds are the least likely to be single (21%). About three-in-ten adults ages 50 to 64 or 65 and older say they are single."

I suppose my personal bias is that while being single is a valid lifestyle that is a lot of singles at age 50 to 64.

I don't find the 30 to 49 range of 21% to be that big (at least a percent or two are likely single for expected reasons like entering a priesthood or being asexual) and while the below 30 single rate is a little surprising the difference between an 18 year old adult and 28 year old adult is too big to draw conclusions.

I'm not going to waste my time clicking a second video link but if Gemini can be believed he said "we don't know exactly how they work" which somehow became

"We don’t even know how LLMs work. "

In your retelling, an exaggeration which rightfully led to pushback.

Aside from that I don't know what conversation you think we are having.

"In that video above George Hinton, directly says we don't understand how it works."

That isn't what Hinton said in the first link. He says essentially:

People don't understand A so they think B.

But actually the truth is C.

This folksy turn of phrase is about a group of "people" who are less knowledgeable about the technology and have misconceptions.

Maybe he said something more on point in the second link, but your haphazard use of urls doesn't make me want to read on.

If I had to defend the term addictive- presumably the addiction goes away when you beat the 30 hour game.

So it's not addictive in the ongoing, problematic way that cocaine would be.

I see no reason to believe anything Altman says, but food for thought:

Is it possible such a bonus, if it exists, would be contingent on Meta inventing AGI within a certain number of years, for some definition of AGI? Or possibly would have some other very ambitious performance metric for advancing the technology?

I didn't miss the point—you missed mine.

Deciding you like em dashes— and writing a blog post saying so—because an AI told you they were good for human writers—is funny behavior—even if "you" weren't LLM output masquerading as an author.

It's very generous of you to assume a "human writer" wrote that blog post—is it not?