This is an excellent policy position, if only the argumentation wasn’t dogshit. I am begging everyone even vaguely lib-left, stop writing like this. If you’re trying to write a petition, open letter, or public statement, for the love of god write it for people other than yourselves or just don’t say anything at all.

Internet censorship is bad for alphabet people, but it’s also bad for the straights. It’s bad for everyone. It’s just bad.

Freedom is for everyone. And Heritage wasn’t coming to the parade anyway.

The only org they call out by name is The Heritage Foundation.

I assumed that they were already skipping the parade.

1. Idgaf about China and what they do and you shouldn’t either, even if US paranoia about them is highly predictable.
2. Depending on the outputs it’s not always that transformative.
3. The moat would be good actually. The business model of LLMs isn’t good, but it’s not even viable without massive subsidies, not least of which is taking people’s shit without paying.

It’s a huge loss for smaller copyright holders (like the ones that filed this lawsuit) too. They can’t afford to fight when they get imitated beyond fair use. Copyright abuse can only be fixed by the very force that creates copyright in the first place: law. The market can’t fix that. This just decides winners between competing mega corporations, and even worse, up ends a system that some smaller players have been able to carve a niche in.

Want to fix copyright? Put real time limits on it. Bind it to a living human only. Make it non-transferable. There’s all sorts of ways to fix it, but this isn’t it.

ETA: Anthropic are some bitches. “Oh no the fines would ruin us, our business would go under and we’d never maka da money :*-(” Like yeah, no shit, no one cares. Strictly speaking the fines for ripping a single CD, or making a copy of a single DVD to give to a friend, are so astronomically high as to completely financially ruin the average USAian for life. That sword of Damocles for watching Shrek 2 for your personal enjoyment but in the wrong way has been hanging there for decades, and the only thing that keeps the cord that holds it up strong is the cost of persuing “low-level offenders”. If they wanted to they could crush you.

Anthropic walked right under the sword and assumed their money would protect them from small authors etc. And they were right.

As explained, it’s not even quite user identification, but rather verification of a unique individual. The ability to identify that an account is held by a unique person (as opposed to possibility being one of many puppet accounts) is pretty useful, particularly if it’s not possible to backtrace it to an otherwise identifiable person.

Even so, the problem I see with this system is that a person has to be careful to never, ever, ever associate their unique ID with themselves, though there will be constant pressure to do so.

Even for those, it won’t, because those people are either:

1. Actually making decisions. or B. Jobs on paper for nepos.

Tbf, this is just declaration of intent to commit war crimes, not genocide.

So first, even here we see foundation money and big tech, not government.

Facebook, Google, etc mostly love net neutrality, tolerate encryption, anf see utility in anonymous internet access, mostly because these things don’t interfere with their core advertising businesses, and generally have helped them. I didn’t see Comcast and others in the ISP oligopoly on that list, probably because they would not benefit from net neutrality, encryption, and privacy for obvious reasons.

The EFF advocates for particular civil libertarian policies, always has. That does attract certain donors, but not others. They have plenty of diverse and grassroots support too. One day they may have to choose between their corpo donors and their values, but I have yet to see them abandon principles.

Oh rly? Influence Watch, from the CRC?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

Further evidence that we’re all just billions of microbes standing on top of each other in a trench coat.

Actually an interesting turn of events. Sounds like she’d been fighting hard to get it back, but they’d been fighting her on it.

Not sure what it all means, but there’s something going on there. It’s all very unusual.

Ah this is terrible.

The bee population is already struggling, and there’s no way this one survived after getting stuck in dude’s throat.

Reportedly the dude was also a dick, and horrible to his ex-wife, but the bee didn’t know that before it killed him.

This really shouldn’t be news.

I suppose JK Rowling, regardless of her personal politics, made her actual money by writing the world’s most popular children’s book series. Likewise George Lucas I guess is probably a billionaire too. And Taylor Swift.

But these are examples of incredibly lucky creators of novel IPs. There’s always been a handful of these people on the lower end of the upper end of economic power.

According to the article she was swallowed. Not likely to come back from that.

Spread responsibility thinly across as many organizations and departments within those organizations and across as many legal thresholds as you can to minimize blowback when something inevitably has to be held to account.

I would say “even busier” and “over-integrated” rather than “incomprehensible”.

Not to start a fight or anything, but it almost reminds me of emacs, because it’s like someone started with an idea for one kind of program, but they just kept adding and adding and adding to it. But emacs at least is free, flexible, long established, free, and quirky.

Not so much because Elon is the way he is, but because the company is vital to the national interest.

AI is good for producing low-stakes outputs where validity is near irrelevant, or outputs which would have been scrutinized by qualified humans anyway.

It often requires massive amounts of energy and massive amounts of (questionably obtained) pre-existing human knowledge to produce its outputs.

Sue that therapist for malpractice! Wait…oh.

“German Foreign Minister profers an invalid defense of a rogue nation’s killing of civilians” to “she is a war criminal herself” to “Nazinazinazi”.