The “battle” is the result of copyright people trying to use open source people for their ends.

In the past, for software, the focus was completely on the terms of the license. If you look at OSI’s new definition, you will find no mention of that, despite the fact that common licenses in the AI world are not in line with traditional standards. The big focus is data, because that is what copyright people care about. AI trainers are supposed to provide extensive documentation on training data. That’s exactly the same demand that the copyright lobby managed to get into the european AI Act. They will use that to sue people for piracy.

Of course, what the copyright people really want is free money. They’re spreading the myth that training data is like source code and training like compiling. That may seem like a harmless, flawed analogy. But the implication is that the people who work and pay to do open source AI have actually done nothing except piracy. If they can convince judges or politicians who don’t understand the implications then this may cause a lot of damage.

Other way around. The NNs are written in, mostly, Python. The frameworks, mainly Pytorch now, handle the heavy-duty math.

Musk also has his hands on a fair amount of data through X and Tesla. But yeah… Copyright expansion seems like an odd place to start breaking the constitution.

You’re right about the regulation but I’m not so sure about the copyright exemptions. All in all, you’d think he’s more likely to side with property owners - especially the heirs of media empires - over progress.

The insistence on electoral districts.

You get that across the English-speaking world, though. The really weird thing is that even people who see the problem want to keep the districts and argue for non-solutions like ranked-choice voting.

Centuries ago, it made sense. Communities chose one of their own to argue for their interests in front of the king. Which communities had the privilege? Obviously that’s up to the king to decide. Before modern communication tech, it also made sense that communities would be defined by geography.

Little of that makes sense anymore. When their candidate loses, people don’t feel like the 2nd best guy is representing them. They feel disenfranchised.

It used to be, in the US, that minorities - specifically African Americans - were denied representation. Today, census data is used to draw districts dominated by minority ethnic groups so that they can send one of their own to congress. This might not be a good thing, because candidates elsewhere do not have to appeal to these minorities or take their interests into account. Minorities that are not geographically concentrated - eg LGBTQ - cannot gain representation that way.

The process is entirely top-down and undemocratic. Of course, it is gamed.

Aside from that, the mere fact that representation is geography based influences which issues dominate. The more likely you are to move before the next election, the less your interests matter. That goes for both parties. But you can also see a pronounced urban/rural divide in party preference. Rural vs urban determines interests and opinions in very basic ways. Say, guns: High-population density makes them a dangerous threat and not much else. In the country, they are a tool for hunting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8VPQsTqFU

Obviously we’d all die but I wonder how exactly. This would make a good question for Randall Munroe.

What are you doing, step stool?

It sounded kinda like: Let’s make people sell the properties they rent out so that wealthy people can buy vacation homes.

The idea is guaranteed to make homelessness worse, so it seems natural that someone might mock it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking.

After a quick skim, seems like the article has lots of errors. Molmo is trained on top of Qwen. The smallest ones are trained on something by the same company as Molmo.

via https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DuckDuckGo+AI+Chat&ia=chat&duckai=1 with GPT-4o mini

The FTC under Biden has begun to push back against tech monopolies.

Maybe you could call it recoupment but it doesn’t have quite the same ring. It’s not quite the same thing, either.

You could also talk about coercive monopolies but that doesn’t mean exactly the same thing.

If the same user can generate the same input, it will result in the same hash.

Yes, if. I don’t know if you can guarantee that. It’s all fun and games as long as you’re doing English. In other languages, you get characters that can be encoded in more than 1 way. User at home has a localized keyboard with a dedicated key for such a character. User travels across the border and has a different language keyboard and uses a different way to create the character. Euro problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence

Byte length of the character is irrelevant as long as you’re not doing something ridiculous like intentionally parsing your input in binary and blithely assuming that every character must be 8 bits in length.

There is always some son-of-a-bitch who doesn’t get the word.

• John F. Kennedy

You should accept Unicode; if doing so, you must count each code as one char.

Hmm. I wonder about this one. Different ways to encode the same character. Different ways to calculate the length. No obvious max byte size.

I think, for a lot of people, technology has come to mean a few websites, or companies.

There are a few lemmy communities dedicated to AI, but they are very inactive. Basically, I’d have to send you to Reddit.

Americans may be seeing serious savings in that picture.

I am seeing serious evolutionary pressure on liver genetics.

can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?

First of all, I am not impressed by this kind of emotional manipulation. You are talking about exercising agency, power, over other people’s bodies. If someone, whether a VFX artist or a hobbyist, would use a likeness without a license, you want them stopped. At the end of the day that means that LEOs will use physical force. You may not think of something like copyright being enforced through physical force, but that is what happens if someone steadfastly refuses to pay fines or damages.

Enforcing intellectual property, like a likeness right, means ultimately exercising power over other people’s bodies. The body whose likeness it is, may not be involved at all. In the typical case of a Hollywood star, they would be completely unaware of what the enforcers are doing.

Rent-seeking is an economics term. Rent-seeking is as rent-seeking does. You may feel that society - the common people -have to suffer for “justice”, like people were expected to suffer for the diving rights of kings. But you can’t expect people not to remark the negative consequences. Well, I guess if I were living in such a monarchy, subject to the divine right of a king, I would be quite circumspect. I wouldn’t want to be tortured or imprisoned, after all. And yet it moves.

Usually, rent-seeking involves property, and yet the right to own property is internationally recognized as a human right.

to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.

We’re probably not on the same page regarding terminology. This sounds like a Karl Marx idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_alienation

Obviously that’s not what you mean. I guess I’m just surprised to see these hints of leftism mixed in with conservative economics.

SAG-AFTRA

…is fundamentally a conservative organization. It’s no coincidence that Ronald Reagan was president of SAG, before becoming president of the US. They will favor the in-group over the out-group and the top over everyone at the bottom. That’s what the doctrines you are repeating are designed for.