Rakn

I’ve been told that Artemis Fowl in the books is actually a nice and smart person. In the movie he comes across as an arrogant dick for a larger part.

It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.

Well. When I copy and paste source code into my program and compile it it also doesn’t retain the actual code. It’s still not allowed.

If I on the other hand read source code, remember and reapply it in a sort of similar way later on then that’s totally fine. But that’s not what OpenAI did there. There wasn’t a human involved that read the articles and then used that knowledge to adjust the LLM.

There question i would have is where is the line there? Does that mean that as soon as there is some automated process that uses the data it’s fine?

E.g. could I have a script that reads all NYT articles, extracts interesting information and provides them in a different format to users?

But they aren’t forming take aways from it. They literally used that material to build this system. I also cannot just go around and take arbitrary data from anywhere and use it to build my own program. There are licenses attached to it and I have to be mindful of who’s work I can use to build my system and who’s I can’t use without explicit permission.

Building this system isn’t looking at other folks material and forming take aways from it. It’s literally using that material as input for building the system.

Might be a fundamental difference in opinion. I don’t see us anywhere near anything related to artificial life.

What they’ve built there is a product, a computer program and they used other folks data to build it without getting their permission. I also cannot go and just copy and paste source code from all over the internet to build my program. There are licenses attached to it that determine what you can or can’t do with it.

I feel like just because the term “learning” is involved people no longer view it as simply building or programming a system. Which it is.

But there is no one learning from it. It serves as a building block / source material to build these LLMs. I feel like the fact that it’s called learning gives folks the impression that it’s similar to what a human would do.

This comparison doesn’t make sense to me. If the person then makes money off it: yes.

Otherwise the question would be if copyright law should be abolished entirely. E.g. if I create a new news portal with content copied form other source, would that be okay then?

You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

One thing though: I’m likely not to stop and consider looking closer at an app if I can’t judge if it’s going to be what I’m looking for. I’m not going to go over random GitHub repositories and create screenshots for their projects. So if the assumption is that the user contributes screenshots I don’t think it will ever change anything for the majority of projects.

I don’t see those as alternatives. Skype was always really buggy, sometimes it worked, other times it didn’t. Didn’t have great cross platform support and wasn’t suited for meetings without 500 - 1000 people. I used it in the past and it was always a huge pain to deal with.

Hangouts is nice for 1:1 chats, but it feels lacking. Last time I tried to have a screen share in a separate window it already failed to do so.

Discord isn’t really an enterprise tool.

Like… I don’t really want to defend Zoom, but the one thing they do just works.

What were the alternatives? One thing I can say about zoom is that it’s easy to use, barely ever has any issues and handles a huge number of participants without a sweat.

I recall having used MS Teams before. But it often wouldn’t work, had server issues and couldn’t handle large audiences well.

Ah it will be at done point

And still it’s basically all Google.