A quick trip on Google scholar turns up a lot of studies on the size of male erections.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/553598c1e4b0a7f854584291/t/55ee4a5ee4b025d99f73150e/1441679966732/Penis+Size+Study+-+Veale+et+al+2015+BJUI.pdf

It is acknowledged that some of the volunteers across different studies may have taken part in a study because they were more confident with their penis size than the general male population.

Ha, poisoned data tho

The best would be to have recorded audio that slowly goes down in volume, with the tone at full blast at the end

The video is 15 minutes long and at the four-second mark flashes a screenshot from Zoolander, in which the protagonist unveils the “Center for Kids Who Can’t Read Good.”

It also features a punchy techno backing track while wasting the reviewer’s time with approximately 14 minutes of inactivity.

Sorry, I was talking about HiQ labs v. Linkedin. But there is Google v. Perfect 10 and Google v. Authors Guild that show how scrapping public data is perfectly fine and include the company in question.

An image generator is trained on a billion images and is able to spit out completely new images on whatever you ask it. Calling it anything but transformative is silly, especially when such things as collage are considered transformative.

Training on publicly available material is currently legal. It is how your search engine was built and it is considered fair use mostly due to its transformative nature. Google went to court about it and won.

Believe it or not, getting votes is also part of their job. It’s an integral part of the system and usually works if they actually try to represent us.

Imagine complaining about the plumber who tried to fix your leaky pipe with a paper napkin, and have someone saying you are scapegoating them. It’s their fucking job to prevent this.

Creators who are justifiably furious over the way their bosses want to use AI are allowing themselves to be tricked by this argument. They’ve been duped into taking up arms against scraping and training, rather than unfair labor practices.

That’s a great article. Isn’t this kind of exactly what is going on here? Wouldn’t bolstering copyright laws make training unaffordable for everyone except a handful of companies. Then these companies, because of their monopoly, could easily make the highest level models only affordable by the owner class.

People are mad at AI because it will be used to exploit them instead of the ones who exploit them every chance they get. Even worse, the legislation they shout for will make that exploitation even easier.

Whatever it is, it isn’t theft

I would donate all my savings towards a movie/documentary of Jesse Eisenberg sitting at home alone and just living his life and entertaining himself with his drab hobbies, just so he is too busy to do any actual movies.

Literally anybody else, please

Someone should start telling him no one has visited the titanic and he could be the first.

The outputs are still bound to copyright laws. Tracing pixel per pixel over an artwork doesn’t make it immune to copyright laws, maliciously over training gen ai to act like a database and outright copy shouldn’t either.

If you have a carbon copy of someone’s github, it doesn’t matter if you generated it, it’s still a copy. Although code is a difficult example since I’m not entirely where the line is for one repo to be different then the other when they are accomplishing the same task.

I always imagined businesses just grabbed the gpl software and would tell their employees to rewrite it but different. Most things I dive down into seem to stem from one algorithm or two from a paper and the rest is fluff.

Yup. Audio books aren’t very big once converted to a reasonable format and with the amount of space these days, I can comfortably keep a dozen on me at all times.

In such a scenario, it will be worth it. Llm aren’t databases that just hold copy pasted information. If we get to a point where it can spit out whole functional githubs replicating complex software, it will be able to do so with most software regardless of being trained on similar data or not.

All software will be a prompt away including the closed sourced ones. I don’t think you can get more open source then that. But that’s only if strident laws aren’t put in place to ban open source ai models, since Google will put that one prompt behind a paychecks worth of money if they can.

I’m not sure how that applies in the current context, where it would be used as training data.

The dismantling goes into overdrive if they send all the juges who can stop it on vacation. I really want them to shut it down but I don’t think it would help.

My dogs face when I’m holding bacon is how I imagine Republicans look when they see a boot.

Why aren’t the tarifs working, is fox news lying to me?

Fuck it, I’d tell his wife. He is obviously a POS and my fictional daughter deserves better. If he wants to toy around with my family, I will do the same.

If it costs billions and billions, then only a handful of companies can afford to build an AI and they now have a monopoly on a technology that will eventually replace a chunk of the workforce. It would basically be giving our economy to Google.