Nah, it’s deliberately formulated so it can be pulled out of context, misrepresented and cause outrage. And it works.

Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.

Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

Exposed credentials means that somebody got sloppy the password. So yeah, “stolen creds”. Give the fact that a) NYT seems knows which credentials were exposed, and b) We haven’t seen hundreds of other high(er) profile companies have their private repos breached, it is far more likely that NYT fucked up, and not Microsoft (which is what you implied, with nothing to back it up - other than a very narrow-minded definition of the word hack).

deleted by creator

Upvoted because this article was an interesting read.

This actual data is not necessarily representative of the entire situation

You keep saying that, but never back it up with any reason.

Everyone here agrees the data is incomplete, but that it’s the best data we have. Only you keep implying that it’s incorrect because [ever less verifiable, unspecified reasons]. Holy hypocrisy, batman.

Do you mind? We’re trying to have a circlejerk here.

I’m sorry you felt the need to denounce claims in videos while openly admitting you don’t even know what the claims are.

I doubt either one of you will ever hear from them. I guess they haven’t even watched the video to begin with.

I didn’t know those were LLMs, TIL.

You’re missing the point. I’ll make your example more specific.

Well when fraud/rape/murder happens we have laws. So no problems.

Those things happen. Creating a LLM based on copyrighted material without permission happens - it’s not a hypothetical. But even then, giving a punishment after the fact does not make the initial crime “no problem”, as you put it.

I don’t think anyone is faulting the machines for this, just the people who instruct the machines to do it.

Would you be okay with applying that argument for any crime?

Bingo.

Using it to (create a tool to) create derivatives of the work on a massive scale.

Maybe make your point yourself, instead of asking people to Google it for you?

“All I did was misrepresent something harmless, done by a company that’s doing so much more horrible things that I shouldn’t be using their product in the first place, and now people are calling me out on it. Clearly, they are wrong.”

Nope, but it will stop the less determined ones.

With no email verification, you can pretty much create dozens of fake accounts per second - as fast as the API can handle.

the ability to scream so loud that other voices can’t reach the audience.

Could you elaborate on that? It’s hard to see which voices are drowned out, on account of them, well, bring drowned out ;)

I personally think it’s more the case that people are just locked into their own little bubbles, thanks to algorithms feeding them a mixture of what they want to hear (to feel validated) and of what upsets them (to get that outrage interaction).

If anything, I think that governments and traditional media are having a lot less influence, in favour of outrage-based, exaggerated, skewed or just down misrepresented takes of the facts - perpetuated by upset participants in social media.

So you’re not opposed to freedom of speech, but freedom of press?

But what’s the alternative? People are allowed to post their opinions, but once they’re part of a company (like a news agency), their publications have to be vetted for by… What, exactly?