It’s Free Software; if they want to change the branding, they can fork it. I say fuck the haters of .lol and anime catgirls.

Corpos might get to use our work gratis (since that’s the only way we can make it libre for everyone), but we don’t have to cater to them.

Is it ethical to order a meal, try it, and then refuse to pay for it if you don’t like it, but pay full price through the normal process if you do like it and choose to consume the whole thing? (EDIT: Just to be clear, the preceding is absolutely ethical.)

What you are doing is roughly as ethical as that, even if (your local / the locally enforceable) laws make it a much more severely punished crime.

Given the size of this bubble (WAY bigger than 2007), the taxpayers are going to hold the bag. We might as well force the companies to share the benefits (if any) as well.

Currently, there are no profits, tho.

LLM output doesn’t automatically get a copyright. But, if it is (part of) a work that includes “human creative effort” (prompts don’t count), the human(s) can hold a copyright on that work.

In addition, the output can still be a derivative work in violation of the copyrights of (some of) the training data, whether or not there are copyrights on that output. It would have to have sufficient similarity to some work in the training data, but that’s not too uncommon.

And, GPL and CC-SA works are known to be in the training data of most models, including Apertus.

I have several TB of storage, and occasionally I will just delete stuff that I haven’t revisited in a while. I really should convert to some sort of offline storage library instead of deleting, but I haven’t yet.

I actually don’t do that many movies, but I do a lot of TV. I do 1080p x265 because that’s really all the monitor I have for VLC. I have downloaded 4K in the past, and there is a 4K TV in the living room, but I don’t usually notice the quality difference and the file sizes are a lot bigger. I have a poor Internet connection (best available in my area), so smaller sizes help me keep my ratios up.

But, that’s just my preference. I have a friend that insists on 4K, but they notice quality issues and are distracted by them more easily.

Often quality blacks also depends on good encoder settings, so if you find an encoder / encoding team that does well, it might be worth seeking out their version(s), even if the file sizes are larger or their releases take longer.

Yeah, I kept my last car 15 years, I hope I can get at least 15 out of the Volt.

But, with the ranges on current EV models, I’ll be comfortable going without an ICE and everything that goes with it for my next vehicle.

Yeah, my Volt varies a bit, but after 7 years it has about 10% loss (51mi. -> 46mi.)

Range has always been less in winter, but not 40%. On a day that never gets above -4, I can still get 29mi. off the battery.

I do 120v / 12A charging at home and an overnight charge exceeds my daily commute. But, yes, a 240v / 25A charger is much faster and an overnight charge in them can cover a daily commute I would find punishingly long.

I would like it to be as fast as gas. But, yeah, if you can walk from the charger to a restroom and maybe grab some food, I really don’t care if it take 15-30 minutes to get back up to 80%.

I currently own a Volt and usually charge at home. My last road-trip OK->IA (and back a week later), I found it hard to find compatible charging stations so much so that I barely used them. On the way back, I did go out of my way to find one – the first one had no facilities at all (it was a dealer parking lot at the corner of two 5-lane stroads with no crosswalk signals), the second one was inaccessible behind a locked gate, the third one several blocks away from any facilities but close enough to walk to one restaurant.

I still plan to get an EV when I finally have to replace the Volt, but I gotta say the charging situation away from home is pretty bleak, IME. Maybe it’s better in different parts of the country. It is almost certainly better on DC charging; I found a few convenience store / gas station / fast food combination buildings that also had DC charging that I would have used if I could. (Volt only has AC charging.)

Poe’s Law

When riding the line, best to add a satire/sarcasm indicator (/s) after the laugh line.

It would be a kinder world if ignorance wasn’t exploited / punished.

But, yeah. It’s not like malware in movies was the first time that ignorance would be very much the opposite of bliss. Plenty of berries that will give you a bad time if you ignorantly eat them; and some plants (and animals) even use mimicry take advantage of the lack of observation or knowledge.

“deserve” might not be the way I’d put it, but you execute enough movies and bad things will happen to you.

Critique is one of the alleys of fair use, yes.

It is possible that merely training an LLM on material might be fair use. It’s basically the same thing are scraping and then doing statistics. That said, I believe the burden of proof is that a use falls into the fair use exemptions; AI training might not satisfy the criteria the courts have previously established. The U.S. copyright office has published guidelines that indicate training does implicate the right of reproduction, so it if it’s NOT fair use and unlicensed, it is infringement / violation.

But, distributing the output can still be a copyright violation not covered by fair use exemptions, even if training is covered by fair use. The U.S. copyright office has indicated that distributing an output could implicate various rights based on the training data that it is similar to.

In any case, LLMs (or any non-human thing) can’t be given a copyright, and the U.S. copyright office says that prompts are NOT sufficient creative effort to establish a copyright on what a generative AI model outputs in response to a prompt. So, it could be that the only rights holders that get to affect the output are the rights holders of the training data.

If this is the same case that came through yesterday, the Trump DOJ brief is basically just an amicus brief. There’s some sort of jurisdictional / standing issue there that I don’t understand; they aren’t the ones arguing in court.

Maybe a world without copyrights would just be better. But, if Disney gets protections, I want protections on my AGPL code and I want the artists enjoy to get protections as well, even if they haven’t joined a licensing cabal. If that means AI is doomed, fuck it.

It’s mostly a nothing-burger right now:

This new Trump administration brief is not a ruling, as the case is being tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the authors of the brief do not have jurisdiction.

The U.S. copyright office somewhat contradicts the brief:

The training process [also] implicates the right of reproduction.

– https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ Part 3, III, B.

Tho, the same documents do mention that “fair use” defenses can apply, but as always they depend on a lot of factors specific to individual acts of possible infringement.

That’s a very “doomer” view of democracy, but you might be right.

The documents I quote are from publications by the U.S. Copyright Office. But, the Berne convention and the WTO ensure that member states copyrights are aligned.

I doubt “allow for AI generated code” has the bipartisan support you think it does; it certainly doesn’t have the popular support. But, ever if it were legal, it should still be unethical (e.g. Amnesty International’s reports of human rights violations in generative AI), and I’d be attempting to avoid it.

I’ve decided to start moving to NetBSD. The copyright status of genAI code is very questionable, and it’s likely any project that integrates it, with be “extinguished” via legal action in the future.

Oh, violence, even lethal violence might be necessary in defense of self or others. But, we must not deny that we are dealing with persons. I’m not even saying don’t dox the guy, I’m saying that don’t forget that you are doxing a person.

The focus should be on rehabilitating the person and remediating any harm they have caused, not on returning harm with harm. Of course, if they are being violent or legitimately threatening violence, defensive violence SHOULD be taken to contain/control/remove the threat.

Violating his privacy might be a good lesson in how “we should balance privacy and safety” as part of his rehabilitation, but we can do that without dehumanization.

Defensive violence is justified only so long as it is defensive.

For example, torturing prisoners is immoral even if the prisoners in question were (and want to be) executioners for the State. They do not pose a legitimate threat of violence when they are (controlled) prisoners.

This is dehumanization. It is the tool of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman_breaks_rifle.jpegxl

–

If you dehumanize persons, you aren’t a leftist or revolutionary or the resistance or an activist. You are a fascist.