I don’t even let them in the room. Housekeeping left the door to my room open once for the entire day. I was across from the elevator. Thankfully nothing was stolen, but ya know, fool me once

More likely, the price changed between screenshots.

We don’t know what the price is on the left.

No. The manufacturer has a minimum advertised pricing policy in place. Amazon has the item priced below this point. So they can only display the price after it’s been added to the cart.

This is a great life lesson. Even though it’s irrational, you can still do it!

Completely agree. And that should be the focal point of the issue.

Sam Altman is correctly stating that AI is not possible without using copyrighted materials. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

His mistake is not redirecting the conversation. He should be talking about the efforts they’re making to stop their machine from reproducing copyrighted works. Not whether or not they should be allowed to use it in the first place.

I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?

In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.

But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.

IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.

Then every single student graduating college produces derivative work.

Everything that required the underlying knowledge gained from the textbooks studied, or research papers read, is derivative work.

At the core of this, what are we saying? Your machine could only explain calculus because it was provided information from multiple calculus textbooks? Well, that applies to literally everyone.

While I would like to be in a world where knowledge is free, this is apples and oranges.

OpenAI can purchase a textbook and read it. If their AI uses the knowledge gained to explain maths to an individual, without reproducing the original material, then there’s no issue.

The difference is the student in your example didn’t buy their textbook. Someone else bought it and reproduced the original for others to study from.

If OpenAI was pirating textbooks, that would be a wholly separate issue.

Reproduction of copyrighted material would be breaking the law. Studying it and using it as reference when creating original content is not.

Honestly, it extends beyond creative works.

OpenAI should not be held back from subscribing to a research publication, or buying college textbooks, etc. As long as the original works are not reproduced and the underlying concepts are applied, there are no intellectual property issues. You can’t even say the commercial application of the text is the issue, because I can go to school and use my knowledge to start a company.

I understand that in some select scenarios, ChatGPT has been tricked into outputting training data. Seems to me they should focus on fixing that, as it would avoid IP issues moving forward.

The issue is simply reproduction of original works.

Plenty of people mimic the style of other artists. They do this by studying the style of the artist they intend to mimic. Why is it different when a machine does the same thing?

Not much. Reddit was left leaning, but Lemmy is liberal as fuck. I consider myself left leaning, but I can’t stand the political bias here

It looks like you’re just so engrained with hate for Musk that you’re literally denying reality.

It’s worse than you think. As an advertiser, I can actually buy targeted product placements in shows. So, let’s say I’m Google, and I know you recently searched for a Google Pixel. If I pay for product placements in the next Prime show, I can get all the phones to be Pixels when you watch it.

But if your friend searched for an iPhone, and he gets targeted by apple, the phones in the show could be iPhones.

Nah, most of it is coming from Alibaba, but at a markup.

SpaceX has paid for starlink through selling flights on their rockets, not through “subsidies like this”

You seem confused if you’re flip flopping between starlink being paid for by consumers and subsidies.

After 5 years.

SpaceX sells services. Just because they’re selling services to the government doesn’t make it a subsidy.

People will keep down voting you, but I just wanted to stop in and let you know that there are other people like you who can read.

People on Lemmy are leftist AF and their seething hate for Musk clouds their ability to think.

The grant requires applicants to meet these benchmarks by 2025. Only SpaceX came close to meeting this standard and only SpaceX is being denied the grant for not yet meeting this requirement.

I had a car with push button start and a CVT. After putting the first 50 miles on the car, the brake light switch died. Nissan, in their ultimate wisdom, used the brake light switch to tell the computer if you are pressing the brake when starting the car. Well, no brake light switch, no starting the engine. Had to get it towed back to the dealership to get fixed.

I now have a real key and a manual transmission.