They don't need to, and shouldn't, use this service. It was not made for them and I doubt sincerely that it was made to harm them.
There were direct victims, but you also forget that the US now has a shared trauma over the handling of the Epstein situation and its systematic suppression, the gaslighting, and anything which continues to fuel discussion is a good thing, until the day that it has been properly addressed.
Even if it's a meme for the general public, actual ML researchers do have to document, understand and discuss the concept of model collapse in order to avoid it.
The idea of applying clean-room design to model training is interesting... having a "dirty model" and a "clean model", dirty model touches restricted content and clean model works only with the output of the dirty model.
However, besides how this sidesteps the fact that current copyright law violates the constitutional rights of US citizens, I imagine there is a very real threat of the clean model losing the fidelity of insight that the dirty model develops by having access to the base training data.
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyright is not “you own this forever because you deserve it”, copyright is “we’ll give you a temporary monopoly on copying to give you an incentive to create”. It’s transactional in nature. You create for society, society rewards you by giving you commercial leverage for a while.
Repeatedly extending copyright durations from the original 14+14 years to durations that outlast everybody alive today might technically be “limited times” but obviously violates the spirit of the law and undermines its goal. The goal was to incentivise people to create, and being able to have one hit that you can live off for the rest of your life is the opposite of that. Copyright durations need to be shorter than a typical career so that its incentive for creators to create for a living remains and the purpose of copyright is fulfilled.
In the context of large language models, if anybody successfully uses copyright to stop large language models from learning from books, that seems like a clear subversion of the law – it’s stopping “the progress of science and useful arts” not promoting it.
(To be clear, I’m not referring to memorisation and regurgitation like the examples in this paper, but rather the more commonplace “we trained on a zillion books and now it knows how language works and facts about the world”.)
Duration of copyright is one way it was perverted, but the other direction was scope. In 1930 judge Hand said in relation to Nichols v. Universal Pictures:
> Upon any work...a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well. At the one end is the most concrete possible expression...at the other, a title...Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can...As respects play, plagiarism may be found in the 'sequence of events'...this trivial points of expression come to be included.
And since then a litany of judges and tests expanded the notion of infringement towards vibes and away from expression:
- Hand's Abstractions / The "Patterns" Test (Nichols v. Universal Pictures)
- Total Concept and Feel (Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.)
- The Krofft Test / Extrinsic and Intrinsic Analysis
- Sequence, Structure, and Organization (Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory)
- Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) Test (Computer Associates v. Altai)
The trend has been to make infringement more and more abstract over time, but this makes testing it an impossible burden. How do you ensure you are not infringing any protected abstraction on any level in any prior work? Due diligence has become too difficult now.
Actually, plenty of activists, for example Cory Doctorow, have spent a significant amount of effort discussing why the DMCA, modern copyright law, DRM, etc. are all anti-consumer and how they encroach on our rights.
It's late so I don't feel like repeating it all here, but I definitely recommend searching for Doctorow's thoughts on the DMCA, DRM and copyright law in general as a good starting point.
But generally, the idea that people are not allowed to freely manipulate and share data that belongs to them is patently absurd and has been a large topic of discussion for decades.
You've probably at least been exposed to how copyright law benefits corporations such as Disney, and private equity, much more than it benefits you or I. And how copyright law has been extended over and over by entities like Disney just so they could prolong their beloved golden geese from entering public domain as long as possible; far, far longer than intended by the original spirit of the copyright act.
Two things can be true at the same time: I get value and a measurable performance boost from LLMs, and their output can be so stupid/stubborn sometimes that I want to throw my computer out the window.
I don't see what is new, programming has always been like this for me.
Unfortunately, we have to prepare for a future where this kind of stuff is everywhere. We will have to rethink how trust is modeled online and offline.
People also seem to forget the impact of lead on society just a couple decades back, and how we are probably going through a similar event now with microplastics. Not to mention many artificial sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, preservatives, etc. as well as widespread use of industrial chemicals.
Plus, it's amazing how collective stress can warp a society over time.
Lobbying is a real thing, propaganda is a real thing, corporate-government collusion is a real thing. The meat and dairy industries are definitely things, and are GIGANTIC, pouring millions and billions into deceiving the public.
If you're looking around the room and don't see the sucker, it might be you.
There are an incredible amount of contaminants and disruptions in today's society. There are far too many possible causes for us to be sure, without process of elimination, that lack of fat of all things is the central cause of the problems you have listed.
Also, I'm not sure if a vegan hurt you or something, but yes in fact there are many of us who believe today's meat farming industry is nothing short of barbaric and extremely damaging to the environment. But believe it or not, most vegans understand protein better than the average person, and make sure to get fats and complete proteins from a variety of sources which don't require industrial-scale torture of helpless animals.
industrial-scale torture of helpless tasty animals.
I did this in jest, but I think this is maybe the main barrier to pulling back on meat consumption. It tastes too damn good.
I am well educated, and would perhaps like to reduce my meat consumption. Until I realize that nearly 100% of my favorite dishes contain meat. And if we expand to milk or eggs, that list expands to 100%.
Food is weird because it sits in an intersection of physiological need, pleasure, craft, and culture.
I like cooking, but many days I wish I could just eat a daily nutrition block and go back to my business :)
And I totally feel you on the taste thing. Meat tastes good, and we're used to it!
I'd recommend looking at some dishes from various Asian cuisines, for example Indian food. The problem with American cuisine is that we've been conditioned to expect meat as part of every meal, three times a day. Even just reducing your meat intake by one meal a day, or even just a few meals a week, can make a massive difference collectively.
I was a vegetarian in my teens, but I suffered from frequent fainting (this had been going on both before and after I was vegetarian, it was just worse during that period), sometimes at really unsettling moments like while shaving my face. I eventually seemed to grow out of these fainting spells, but I went back to eating meat for years.
And the entire time, I recognized the taste of meat as my main barrier to giving it back up. I finally made progress by removing or heavily reducing consumption of one meat at a time. First pork, then beef and other things, and then finally chicken.
Even today, I am a pescatarian and occasionally eat a little fish, shellfish and dairy. I also eat a lot of eggs. Dairy farming still involves what I consider torture however and I have worked to significantly reduce my intake. I really don't mind vegan cheese or even just shredded cashews as a replacement.
I don't feel bad eating mussels, oysters, etc. so I don't think I'll ever stop eating those, but I have significantly reduced the amount of fish I eat as well. I get nervous because I don't want to start fainting again, but I just track my protein and try to get it wherever I can, for example sprouted protein bread, eggs, whey, hemp and pea powders in smoothies, etc.
I am allergic to legumes... as are a lot of other people... so when vegans talk about outlawing meat, you're literally talking about killing me.
I'm fine if YOU or anyone else wants to live without meat... I'm even fine with improving quality of life for farmed animals... but I draw a hard, firm line at outlawing meat.
Nothing in my comment addressed outlawing meat. It's especially absurd to think that any sane person, vegan or not, would want to prevent someone from eating meat if a medical condition limits their options.
What you're doing is projecting an insecurity you have that vegans want to outlaw meat onto my comment, and I'm not even a vegan. This creates a straw man, and now we are off-topic, discussing something I never proposed.
> I'm even fine with improving quality of life for farmed animals
And yes, I've known plenty of vegans who literally want to outlaw meat regardless of need...
As to other contaminants and their effects, of course... but can you honestly say that a half a century of "low fat" and mostly fat sources that are woefully incomplete on essential fatty acid profiles while consuming reduced amounts of fats all around hasn't affected hormone production? Hormone production is directly affected by fat consumption.
> And yes, I've known plenty of vegans who literally want to outlaw meat regardless of need...
Okay, whether or not this is true, projecting such motivations onto me is prejudice. Until you experience it firsthand, you cannot fathom the way American society often treats you the moment you mention you don't eat meat, or advocate for less meat consumption in general.
Everyone's insecurities and prejudices come out, just like now. Lecture after lecture... and then I also have to hear about how non-meat-eaters aggressively push their views on everyone. My experience is the opposite. So let's dispense with the prejudice and graciously interpret each other's comments.
> can you honestly say that a half a century of "low fat" and mostly fat sources that are woefully incomplete on essential fatty acid profiles
This is another straw man. I am not advocating for low-fat products. I am not even vegan. You don't know anything about what I support and are putting words in my mouth.
Opus 4.5 is currently helping me write a novel, comprehensive and highly performant programming language with all of the things I've ever wanted, done in exactly my opinionated way.
This project would have taken me years of specialization and research to do right. Opus's strength has been the ability to both speak broadly and also drill down into low-level implementations.
I can express an intent, and have some discussion back and forth around various possible designs and implementations to achieve my goals, and then I can be preparing for other tasks while Opus works in the background. I ask Opus to loop me in any time there are decisions to be made, and I ask it to clearly explain things to me.
Contrary to losing skills, I feel that I have rapidly gained a lot of knowledge about low-level systems programming. It feels like pair programming with an agentic model has finally become viable.
I will be clear though, it takes the steady hand of an experience and attentive senior developer + product designer to understand how to maintain constraints on the system that allow the codebase to grow in a way that is maintainable on the long-term. This is especially important, because the larger the codebase is, the harder it becomes for agentic models to reason holistically about large-scale changes or how new features should properly integrate into the system.
If left to its own devices, Opus 4.5 will delete things, change specification, shirk responsibilities in lieu of hacky band-aids, etc. You need to know the stack well so that you can assist with debugging and reasoning about code quality and organization. It is not a panacea. But it's ground-breaking. This is going to be my most productive year in my life.
On the flip side though, things are going to change extremely fast once large-scale, profitable infrastructure becomes easily replicable, and spinning up a targeted phishing campaign takes five seconds and a walk around the park. And our workforce will probably start shrinking permanently over the next few years if progress does not hit a wall.
Among other things, I do predict we will see a resurgence of smol web communities now that independent web development is becoming much more accessible again, closer to how it when I first got into it back in the early 2000's.
Unfortunately what likely will happen is that you miss tons of edge cases and certain implementations within the confines of your language will be basically impossible or horribly inefficient or ineffective and precisely the reason for it will be because you lack that expertise and relied on an LLM to make it up for you.
That's not how this works. Assume less about my level of expertise. By the end of a session, I understand the internals of what I'm implementing. What is shortened is the search space and research/prototyping intervals.
If I didn't ultimately understand where I was going, projects like this hit a dead end very quickly, as mentioned in my caveats. These models are not yet ready for large-scale or mission-critical projects.
But I have a set of a constraints and a design document and as long as these things are satisfied, the language will work exactly as intended for my use case.
Not using a frontier model to code today is like having a pretty smart person around you who is pretty good at coding and has a staggering breadth and depth of knowledge, but never consulting them due to some insecurity about your own ability to evaluate the code they produce.
If you have ever been responsible for the work of other engineers, this should already be a developed skill.
What I am building doesn't work as a DSL, because it relies on compiler optimizations not available to DSLs in other languages. It also has low level support for cross-platform GPU programming. However, I do have support for FFI and also plan to experiment with a WASM port that works with a JS/TS API.
Long-term maybe we won't care about code because AI will just maintain it itself. Before that day comes, don't you want a coding language that isn't opinionated, but rather able to describe the problem at hand in the most understandable way possible (to a human)?
You're reading too much into what I mean by "opinionated".
I have very specific requirements and constraints that come from knowledge and experience, having worked with dozens of languages. The language in question is general-purpose, highly flexible and strict but not opinionated.
However, I am not experienced in every single platform and backend which I support, and the constraints of the language create some very interesting challenges. Coding agents make this achievable in a reasonable time frame. I am enjoying making the language, and I want to get experience with making low-level languages. What is the problem? Do you ever program for fun?
On that note though, the other day I asked Opus to write a short story for me based on a prompt, and to typeset it and export it to multiple formats.
The short story overall was pretty so-so, but it had a couple of excellently poignant quotes within. I was more impressed that I was reading a decently typeset PDF. The agent was able to complete a complicated request end-to-end. This already has immense value.
Overall, the story was interesting enough that I read until the end. If I had a young child who had shown this to me for a school project, I would be extremely impressed with them.
I don't know how long we have before AI novels become as interesting/meaningful as human-written novels, but the day might be coming where you might not know the difference in a blind test.
i am in the process of finishing up a role doing annotations for these, for a company i cannot name (basically clicking lots of box hundreds of times a day)
So the endless hosepipe of repetitive , occasionally messed up, requests has probably not helped me endear myself to them.
Anecdotally having chatgpt do some of my CV was ok but i had to go through it and remove some exaggerations. The one thing i think these bots are good at is talking things up..
Yes, as it stands now, all frontier models are still downright corny. But a lot of elements of good storytelling are there: the story Opus generated used symmetry and circular storytelling, created tension and release, used metaphor appropriately and effectively... all of those things are there. But the actual execution was just corny.
But you should read the stuff I wrote when I was young. Downright terrible on all accounts. I think better training will eventually squeeze out the corniness and in our lifetimes, a language model will produce a piece that is fundamentally on par with a celebrated author.
Obviously, this means that patrons must engage in internal and external dialogue about the purpose of consuming art, and whether the purpose is connecting with other humans, or more generally, other forms of intelligence. I think it's great that we're having these conversations with others and ourselves, because ultimately it just leads to more meaningful art. We will see artist movements on both sides of the generative camps produce thought-provoking pieces which tackle the very concept of art itself.
In my case, when I see a piece of generative art or literature which impresses me, my internal experience is that I feel I am witnessing something produced by the collective experience of the human race. Language models only exist because of thousands of years of human effort to reach this point and produce the necessary quality and quantity of works required to train these models.
I also have been working with generative algorithms since grade school so I have a certain appreciation for the generative process itself, and the mathematical ideas behind modern generative models. This enhances my appreciation of the output.
Obviously, I get different feelings when encountering AI slop where in places where I used to encounter people. It's not all good. But it's not all bad, either, and we have to come to terms with the near future.
reply