Can you name a single password vault that has removed the ability to export, I would say it is a bit of wild speculation to assume this would happen. Even more so as there seems to only be anecdotal and speculative evidence this would happen.
Between the law suits, and the brand damage, there is likely very little upside for a company entertaining this idea.
> It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different.
The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior.
Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is the foundation of how advancement works.
So this concept of the issue of the scale being the issue isn't at its core the problem, its that something that that is desired behavior in a human, is not socially acceptable because of a machine is doing it.
What a total non-sequitur. You think you found flaw in one of the examples, instead of seeing if you can come up with better ones, you say it so it can't be this, therefore it's a completely different thing that makes zero sense. Machines aren't "doing" anything, they're being wielded by humans. And they're doing it at scale, to other humans, via the force multiplication of machines.
Why would I attempt to come up with a "better" example of a premise I reject?
Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around. Plagiarism be it small scale or large isn't acceptable, and the idea that humans doing things that are wrong is ok, but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?
> Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around.
No, I instead refuted your reply.
> but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?
No, humans doing things can be okay or not so okay depending on the scale they do them at. "AI" isn't "doing" anything by itself, at all, so that doesn't enter into it at all. You cannot separate "scale" and "thing". Rubbing your hands to make them warmer is fine, igniting a nuke is not, both aren't "basically the same thing, raising temperature, just at different scales". You didn't reject the premise, you didn't understand it in the first place, and knocked down your own straw man instead. Which I pointed out, that's all.
Ha, I'm sorry do you think you've made a logical point by comparing rubbing your hands together, and "igniting a nuke."
Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument. Small scale plagiarism isn't acceptable, neither is large scale.
You are refuting my reply seemingly without the context of the article, and larger issue at hand.
Don't be condescending when you aren't even accurately a following the original premise or purpose.
> If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale.
is a fallacy. Which it is. You confirm this by apparently seeing a difference between generating a little bit of heat and a whole lot, to name one of infinite examples anyone can easily come up with.
> Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument.
You just keep doing the thing I pointed out in my first reply, you claim "it's not this" on a technicality, and then say "so therefore it's this instead", and the other thing is a criticism nobody brings up, ever.
And it gains you nothing, because if plagiarism isn't even okay at small scale, surely you can see how it's even less okay at big scale.
> (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).
That's not the criticism, that's the straw man used to dodge the criticism. Of course the straw man makes no sense, that's why it gets put up.
Machines aren't doing anything, humans are doing things, with or without machines.
"It's fine to raise the temperature of your surroundings by 0.0001 degrees by exhaling. It's less fine to set a house on fire, and even less fine to ignite a nuke. But aren't the all the same thing? How hypocritical that raising temperature is okay for some but not others???"
That things can change quality with quantity/frequency is trivially obvious, and you can think of many examples. Bad ones, good ones, doesn't matter. The point of OP stands, all that was added was how absolutely brazen the nonsense is getting.
> there's nothing which is recommended to do X of, but is abhorrent to do 10X of.
No we don't, because that's nonsense. You can ask a stranger in the street for the time of day once, and they will react very, very differently if you ask them 10 times in a row. You can drive N miles per hour in a school zone, you cannot drive at 10x the speed, and so on.
> Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is the foundation of how advancement works.
Exactly, if anything, the logic (a bit bad -> really bad) shows that one person learning from one thing is far inferior to one person learning from every thing (a bit good -> really good).
The argument isn't small crime vs large crime. It is no crime regardless of scale.
If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. And any derived works produced from that information isn't theft or copyright violation.
Though I do think there is a valid gripe with the LLMs being trained on pirated materials. I've also personally learned from a lot of PDF of textbooks I didn't own.
Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.
Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?
In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI.
And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the original source material even when none of that material is present in the end result?
So if we can't just leave it at its a tool, then we have to look at existing frameworks of laws and ethics to make the case of how this should be treated.
I'll just take my tools (video camera) into a cinema to learn off the latest Hollywood flicks. It's not an accurate 1:1 representation to the original source material, so the output that I've produced from it belongs to me.
Sure you can do that, but because there are several laws against that specific action already, you will be likely face prosecution, and the content (something poorly duplicated, not created) would be seized.
But lets assume, that your camera has an LLM in it, and it trained in this fashion, and you performed this action on countless other films, and then the camera could produce wholly unique and original work that did not have any duplication of the original works it sampled. The work produced would not be a violation of copyright, nor would it be plagiarism.
Just as someone whose education was to watch a large number of movies, and then created their own based on that education.
But as previously mentioned you may face the ramifications of violating the agreement you had for accessing the original source material in an illegal way.
> Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?
Of course they are! Is a video recorder not a tool? No one is claiming rights for video recorders.
Once again, the status quo is that tools do not get rights, the burden is on you to prove why an exemption should be made, not on those who are asking "why should tools get rights?"
Actually the burden is to prove that what AI is producing is plagiarism or copyright violation, this isn't about some special right, but that there are many making the case that things produced by AI are duplication of their work.
I'm also not sure where the concept of "the tool" be given a right to anything, That certainly isn't my argument, the right of the work should be to the user/owner used to create things with the tool. There are several pieces in the SFMOMA that use automation to create art, that art is credited to the creator of the machine, not the machine, I see AI in a similar lens.
You are intentionally selecting a device that makes duplicates of things as your comparator, so I can't tell if that is biased or some sort of flaw in your argument.
But an LLM being trained on works, and generating something based off of that training is not a duplication of any specific copyrighted material, and is wholly unique is not duplication.
> But an LLM being trained on works, and generating something based off of that training is not a duplication of any specific copyrighted material, and is wholly unique is not duplication.
Right[1], and humans can do that, no problem - ingesting existing material and recombining them to produce something new (not necessarily unique) is a right that humans are afforded. The question being asked is, since we don't allow that right to any other tools, why does this tool need an exemption?
-------------
[1] Not really (i.e. I don't necessarily agree with this point), but lets assume it for the sake of this discussion.
How large do you think your some total of all things learned would be as a dataset, we aren't that different in that regard, just in how we amass that dataset and how curated it is.
I was trying to stick to the example, but I agree, that getting away with something doesn't determine if it is right or wrong. And the whole concept of that makes for shaky ground for any form of legal or ethical argument.
I think the difference here is that you guys are talking ethics. And in fact what were talking about is enforcement. While its unethical to pick one flower (in it's purest form, robbing the commons of the beauty of a flower), it won't be enforced.
Ok, what is so special about understanding anyway? we understand way less things than we do no understand.
IMO, we're just giving special weight to understanding just because it gives people wages. Someone's specific brain structure should not privilege them over others. UBI or something equitable on those lines is the answer.
I have dyslexia, and perhaps its because I developed a lot of mechanics to handle it, I don't find the font useful, it doesn't resolve any of the issues I have, and I find Console fonts more appealing.
what an odd clickbait type article, it goes over the history of people who previously wanted to do this. But mention there is no current effort to do so, and asking the question is irrelevant.
I wonder where the divide of "shebang" vs "hashbang" lands geographically and chronologically, During college and for many years in the early 90s and 2000s in the south it commonly called hashbang, didn't hear shebang until C# became a thing, I know it predates that, just never heard it before then.
I believe the dividing moment came with Ricky Martin circa 2000.
Lame joke aside, I only heard "shebang" prior to around that time, then "hashbang" and now I get a mix of it. Google trends indicates "shebang" always dominated.
In my head I translate an old Swedish term: "timber yard" (from Brädgård). Everything to make interacting with other hard I guess. As a kid we also called it staket, which translates to "fence".
I always found it interesting as the sharp term including C# was odd because it isn't the sharp symbol, which is ♯. All of them use the # hash character, so calling it sharp always seemed odd to me, though C-Hash also doesn't roll of the tongue admittedly. It is also interesting how hash is correctly used in some places "Hash Tag" but not others.
It's supposed to be the sharp symbol; it's just that it was a hassle for them to use it consistently in paths etc, so they defaulted to # as a stand-in.
It's "sharp" (i.e. higher tone) because it's a higher-level language compared to C and C++.
In 2010 I met a person from India who pronounced it "C pound", and they were as confused by my reaction as I was by their pronunciation. I guess somehow that pronunciation became popular enough that it acquired momentum and everyone in their circle (or maybe all of India?) assumed it was correct. The # key on the phone is called the "pound key" in India, which is where it would've started from, and I guess they never heard any foreigner Youtube video etc pronouncing it.
I don't know if they still pronounce it that way or not.
I started using C# towards the end of the 1.0 beta or maybe just after RTM...I embarrassingly called it "C pound" for quite a while. Because, even as someone born and raised in the US, pretty much my only exposure to the symbol was in the context of phones. "Call me at blah, pound one-two-three" as in the extension is "#123".
Remember, it was originally release +20 years ago (goddamn, I feel old now); recorded video or even audio over the internet were much, much, MUCH rarer then, when "high-speed" speed internet for a lot of people meant a 56K modem.
Back then, most developer's first exposure to C# then was likely in either print form (books or maybe MSDN magazine).
It still is, to this day: if you call an automated system such as voicemail, you may be prompted to "press 'pound'". This is really standardized, AFAICT, and no telephone system has told me to "press hash" or "press the 'number' key" [because that's ambiguous]
I was trying to recall what we called it. I used SVR3, so I would've been using "#!/bin/sh" as early as 1990, and even more on SunOS 4 and other Unix servers.
I can't recall having a name for it until "hash-bang" gained currency later. We knew it was activated by the magic(5) kernel interpretations. I often called "#" as "pound" from the telephone usage, and I recall being tempted to verbalize it in C64 BASIC programming, or shell comment characters, but knowing it was not the same.
"The whole shebang" is a Civil-War-era American idiom that survived with my grandparents, so I was familiar with that meaning. And not really paying attention to Ricky Martin's discography.
Wikipedia says that Larry Wall used it in 1989. I was a fervent follower of Larry Wall in the mid-90s and Perl was my #1 scripting language. If anyone would coin and/or popularize a term like that, it's Just Another Perl Hacker,
Likewise, "bang" came from the "bang path" of UUCP email addresses, or it stood for "not" in C programming, and so "#!/bin/sh" was ambiguously nameless for me, perhaps for a decade.
Come to think of it, vi and vim have a command "!" where you can filter your text through a shell command, or "shell out" from other programs. This is the semantic that makes sense for hash-bangs, but which came first?
> "bang" came from the "bang path" of UUCP email addresses
"Bang" was in common use by computer users around 1970 when I was working at Tymshare. On the SDS/XDS Sigma 7, there was a command you could use from a Teletype to send a message to the system operator on their Teletype in the computer room. I may have this detail wrong, but I seem to recall that it included your username as a prefix, maybe like this:
GEARY: CAN YOU LOAD TAPE XYZ FOR ME?
What I do remember clearly is that there were also messages originated by the OS itself, and those began with "!!", which we pronounced "bang bang". Because who would ever want to say "exclamation point exclamation point"?
The reason this is vivid in my mind is that I eventually found the low-level system call to let me send "system" messages myself. So I used it to prank the operator once in a while with this message:
!! UNDETECTABLE ERROR
I was proud of calling it an "undetectable" error. If it was undetectable, how did the OS detect it?
I've landed in a smaller non profit, the pay isn't amazing, but the benefits are, including a pension.
The main reason is it matches the feels of a start up, I have my hands in all decisions, from tech to literally office arrangement, and actively work to solve all issues in the company. That and at the end of the day, I feel good about what we are doing. I'm not chasing an IPO, our funding is very stable, so there isn't the endless dread of whats at the end of the run way.
My biggest fear, is that I don't know if I could easily go back to the rat race, and that my skills have broadened, become soft set and I don't actively develop as much as I once did.
Up near the top? It literally had a controversies section on Wikipedia due to all these shady things it did, with cryptocurrency and others, I am not sure how worse it can get [0]. I'll take URL ads any day of the week compared to the kinds of things Brave pulled over the years.
The list for Firefox over the years would warrant a whole page on Wikipedia. Browser choices are a who's who of who's debased themselves the fewest number of times trying to squeeze money out of a free product. The current state of Brave is better than the current state of Firefox right now.
I simply don't understand how you could think that about Brave yet in the same breath say that Firefox is worse, what exactly is worse about Firefox than hiding a literally cryptocurrency scam token in the browser itself?
Brave today: Here's a free browser with no ads, built-in adblock and user-respecting defaults. If you want there's also this crypto thing you can try. No pressure, most people don't. We also have an ad supported search engine as our default.
Firefox today: Here's a free browser with ads on the new tab page, ads in the url bar, ads in Pocket, ads for our VPN service, and we let advertisers collect your data same as Chrome with "privacy preservation ad measurement" and you have to turn all of that off. We have an ad supported search engine by default. We also redirect your DNS queries to a third party "for your privacy."
I think people want Firefox to be better than it is in practice because of the historical good will they've built up over the years. I wish they were better too.
Personally I'd much rather have a non-Chromium browser with some unintrusive ads than one with cryptocurrency, perhaps that is where our differences lie. And anyway, with Chromium being upstream with Manifest v3, who knows how long Brave can keep up its adblocking capabilities?
