artifex

So yesterday’s Anthropic victory said that the use of copyrighted works to train LLMs was fair use, but only because Anthropic had been buying and scanning in the media so the first sale doctrine was protecting them. Did the judge in the facebook case now really say that it was ok to pirate the materials in the first place because there was no market harm? That seems impossible, it seems like it would open up a huge loophole in copyright law.

Ah the old “owe $100 and the bank owns you; owe $100,000,000 and you own the bank” defense.

FYI many credit cards will allow you to make virtual numbers which you can then use for individual purchases or groups of purchases. They were originally meant to help combat fraud but I use them for subscription services so that if they give me a hard time about quitting I can simply cancel the card number and file a dispute (which in my few experiences has always gotten me my “overage” fees back)

He’s a modern day arms dealer.

On the one hand, I understand the inherent limitations of pseudonymous social media and why a corporation and even end users might benefit from authoritative user identification.

On the other hand, oh hell no.

The Meta AI app is a Privacy Disaster.

Also 1 degree C is the same as 1 degree K - only the starting point is different

As stupid as this sounds I think we (and really the media, but we know which side they’re on) should be doing this in F for US audiences. Saying “hey, it’s now 5°F hotter than it was in the 1970s” is more immediately meaningful — and the bigger number looks scarier too.

As stupid as this sounds I think we (and really the media, but we know which side they’re on) should be doing this in F for US audiences. Saying “hey, it’s now 5°F hotter than it was in the 1970s” is more immediately meaningful — and the bigger number looks scarier too.