They clearly were being digitized, but I think its a more philosophical discussion that we're only banging our heads against for the first time to say whether or not it is fair use.
Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings. Digitization is just memory. If the models cannot think then it is meaningless digital regurgitation and plagiarism, not to mention breach of copyright.
The quotes "consistent with copyright's purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress." and "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer" say, from what I can tell, that the judge has legally ruled the model can think as a human does, and therefore has the legal protections afforded to "creatives."
In my mind, there is a difference between a person using there own creative thinking to create a derivative work from learning about a subject and making money off of it versus a corporation with a language model that is designed to absorb the works of the entire planet and redisrubtes that information in away that puts them in a centralized position to become an authority on information. With a person, there is a certain responsibility one has to create meaning from that work so that others can experience it. For-profit companies are like machines that have no interest in the creative expression part of this process hence there is a concern that they do not have the best interests of the public at heart.
> Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings.
No, that's fallacious. Using anthropomorphic words to describe a machine does not give it the same kinds of rights and affordances we give real people.
The judge did use some language that analogized the training with human learning. I don't read it as basing the legal judgement on anthropomorphizing the LLM though, but rather discussing whether it would be legal for a human to do the same thing, then it is legal for a human to use a computer to do so.
First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using
works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic
from this use (Opp. 16). But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for
training or learning as such. Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need
to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay
specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory,
each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.
For centuries, we have read and re-read books. We have admired, memorized, and internalized
their sweeping themes, their substantive points, and their stylistic solutions to recurring writing
problems.
...
In short, the purpose and character of using copyrighted works to train LLMs to generate
new text was quintessentially transformative. Like any reader aspiring to be a writer,
Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but
to turn a hard corner and create something different. If this training process reasonably
required making copies within the LLM or otherwise, those copies were engaged in a
transformative use.
Yeah I see the point, but is still thing there is a differnce between human learning and machine learning creatively, see my post above connected to the parent.
If I can use my brain to learn, I as a human can use my computer to learn.
Its like, taking notes, or google image search caching thumbnails. Honestly we dont even need the learning metaphor to see this is obviously not an infringement.
Right but there's more potential reproducibility in the notes than the AI model. Like other than some philosophical aversion to the word "Learn" its clearly not infringing.
>loading notes into your laptop is not you learning
I dont want to get too distracted by this, but tptb really hate me (questioning american notions of excellence draws the eye of sauron) and have limited my posting. Note taking is actually crucial to my actually learning things. I am largely a kinaesthetic learner, but when it comes to pure data retention, if I am not writing it out, it goes straight through. Note taking is crucial to my learning new things and retaining data, and I know I am not the only one.
Heck its a common (or was common) for writers to completely rewrite, by hand the books of "great" authors to try and learn their "voice".
The value of Gold is based on scarcity dictated by the laws of Physics, and on people believing it has value. The fascination with that yellow gleam goes as far back as recorded time. The fact that it's easy to work with (malleability, ductility, etc.) probably played a part as well.
The value of Crypto products is based on scarcity dictated by the computationally intensive nature of certain algorithms, and on people believing those products have value.
Gold isn't a currency. Gold coins can be, but then you either have to trust the mint or you carry around a scale. The key is being fungible and it's the state that promises that a dollar bill is equal to any other dollar bill.
> of course you'd need bigger parking lots than seating space
There is a tacit assumption in your statement. Of course you don't need vast parking lots around stadiums, and there are plenty of real-world sports arenas that don't have those (some examples [1][2][3]). The parking that there is is structural, and most people simply use public transit to reach these places, which are often located in moderately densely built areas. So, allow me to restate your claim, with a different assumption:
Of course you need great mass transit connections to a stadium, how else would people reach it?
Edit: But yes, people also don't have a good intuition on how much space cars actually waste in bulk. For example, many people don't seem to realize how much space it saves on roadways if 50 people sit in a bus or or tram or train rather than in 30 or 40 cars. Indeed, any rational motorist should be enthusiastically in favor of any project that makes public transit more attractive or accessible, purely for selfish reasons!
Or Letzigrund in Zurich, with a capacity of up to 50,000 people for concerts, and absolutely zero street parking available: https://goo.gl/maps/kPye3VdVB9ZLpPsx8
Edmonton's original light rail line was good for connecting the home of the Oilers with the home of the Eskimos, the former home of the Oilers, as well as the home of the Ooks, the Golden bears, as well as the Saville Sports centre and the Claireview rec center.
The light rail line is not so good for connecting people from their home to their place of work. It was built a long an old industrial rail corridor 40 years ago and the area around all the rail stations is still zoned as industrial.
They've since built massive expansions, which is good, although they are now nearly 4 years behind schedule on the first major leg expected to open. I'm looking forward to an lrt system that's good for more than getting quickly from one sports complex to another.
I'm also a little curious on how to compare capacities. Per wikipedia, it is only 25k for sports. 70+k for teams is common in many of the other stadiums I looked at. That said, I don't exactly know that many stadiums. Very intimidating to see how large many of these places are.
There are a few thousand parking spots in garages a few stops away on the light rail, but the whole district the stadium is in has only about 5k public parking spots overall for ALL purposes. The sensible strategy is to arrive by public transit — many of the events (both concerts and sports events) have a train ticket included in the price of admission, run extra trains for the events, (including extra security in the case of soccer games), and light rail drops you less than 100m from the entrance of the stadium.
If you absolutely need to arrive by car, either come early or pick a garage elsewhere in the city, and take public transit to the stadium.
If you're absolutely allergic to public transit, you could probably get a Taxi, Uber, or friend to drop you off.
For sports events, some of the away fans travel in hired buses which will drop them off at the stadium, wait at some special lot (considerably more space efficient than the equivalent in cars, and can be further away), and pick them up again after the game.
Even in US cities, stadia often lack massive surface parking lots. Giants stadium and Fenway are examples that do have some (very expensive) parking but are also on top of transit.
>The value of the tokens is completely and totally dependent on a consensus of crypto miners doing their job within the parameters of the system, assuming you want them to maintain a price and trading volume that's favorable to the token holders.
Number of miners has absolutely nothing to do with trading volumes, not sure where you got that from. Miners don't maintain a price any more than a whale maintains a price.
>If the majority of miners suddenly go bust due to outside circumstances
The rest of the miners would step in and start making more money, actually.
>they decide to conspire together and attack the system, or conspire with some whales to perform a rug pull
Not much of a rug pull to sell the tokens you've legitimately acquired through mining or fiat buying. That's just selling. High volatility selling, yes, but still just selling.
>it's extremely likely that your tokens aren't going to be worth anything anymore. This applies to every token, including bitcoin.
Oh yes, Bitcoin has died thousands of times. Maybe you'll be right one day, but I doubt it.
>Miners don't maintain a price any more than a whale maintains a price.
Yes, my point is both of them have a means and incentive to manipulate the price in ways that may not be favorable to the trader.
>The rest of the miners would step in and start making more money, actually.
Yes, at the cost of removing some of the security of the system. They can only maintain security if they have immediate access to more hash power which they probably don't. In that moment because of the sudden drop in hash power, the network is vulnerable to an attack by other malicious miners coming in and taking over. Alternately, if the rest of the miners notice what's going on they could see this as increased opportunity for them to conspire and become malicious.
>Not much of a rug pull to sell the tokens you've legitimately acquired through mining or fiat buying. That's just selling. High volatility selling, yes, but still just selling.
This right here is the conversation I most dread having with crypto people. It's fraud. You can call it fraud. Manipulating the market so the price is artificially high and then dumping it off onto unsuspecting buyers is a fraud. It doesn't matter how you initially got the coins. Yes, we can group different types of selling into different categories, like ones that are fraudulent and ones that aren't.
>Oh yes, Bitcoin has died thousands of times.
The exception that proves the rule, huh? There are definitely thousands of shitcoins that have crashed and burned and won't ever recover because they were plain old ponzis. Bitcoin crashed a lot of times, not thousands, but enough to wipe lots of people out every time it happens, relative to the number of people using bitcoin at the time. It's still not clear that any of the money moving around in bitcoin is actually real money or assets. I'm certain it's a ponzi too.
>Maybe you'll be right one day, but I doubt it.
So you're saying bitcoin is too big to fail, is that right?
Did you later call and ask the officer if that was the exact second he decided you will get a ticket? Or were you merely persuaded by her saying that was what happened?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but yes I would argue academia is not the real world i.e. private sector companies. Its academia. There are a whole different set of rules because it is not a privately run for-profit company. And nothing ever happens specifically because that's absolutely par for the course in academia. There's a whole different culture there.
Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings. Digitization is just memory. If the models cannot think then it is meaningless digital regurgitation and plagiarism, not to mention breach of copyright.
The quotes "consistent with copyright's purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress." and "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer" say, from what I can tell, that the judge has legally ruled the model can think as a human does, and therefore has the legal protections afforded to "creatives."