Interesting. Didn’t know about the google books case. I agree that it applies here.

I think it’s critically important to be very specific about what LLMs are “able to do” vs what they tend to do in practice.

The argument is that the initial training data is sufficiently altered and “transformed” so as not to be breaking copyright. If the model is capable of reproducing the majority of the book unaltered, then we know that is not the case. Whether or not it’s easy to access is irrelevant. The fact that the people performing the study had to “jailbreak” the models to get past checks tells you that the model’s creators are very aware that the model is very capable of producing an un-transformed version of the copyrighted work.

From the end-user’s perspective, if the model is sufficiently gated from distributing copyrighted works, it doesn’t matter what it’s inherently capable of, but the argument shouldn’t be “the model isn’t breaking the law” it should be “we have a staff of people working around the clock to make sure the model doesn’t try to break the law.”

That study is six months old. The one I linked is from three weeks ago.

No it isn’t. Read.

That’s quite a claim, I’d like to see that.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

Yet most AI models can recite entire Harry Potter books if prompted the right way, so that’s all bullshit.

Looks like it’s getting close to the Streisand kiss of death.

Also that’s not that impressive. 30 million devices is roughly one per second year round. Phone manufacturers make many times that in a year.

Generally it’s made by first filtering out other gasses (there are materials that will pass nitrogen but block oxygen), and then you just get it super cold with a cryocompressor (uses helium as a refrigerant) to liquify it.

Just read the article.

Basically the entire US economy, every employer, many schools, and half of the commercials on TV are telling us to use and trust AI.

Kid was already using the bot for advice on homework and relationships (two things that people are fucking encouraged to do depending on who you ask). The bot shouldn’t give lethal advice. And if it’s even capable of doing that, we all need to take a huuuuuuge step back.

“I want to make sure so I don’t overdose,” Nelson explained in the chat logs viewed by the publication. “There isn’t much information online and I don’t want to accidentally take too much.”

Kid was curious and cautious, and AI gave him incorrect information and the confidence to act on that information.

He was 19. Cut this victim blaming bullshit. Being a kid is hard enough before technology went full cyberpunk.

You’re probably right. I noticed the feature, but haven’t personally tried it.

FYI if you’re ham licensed, you can boost the output power of your mesh radio. There’s a setting in most firmwares.

Think of how much people whine about printer ink without A) looking for alternatives and B) questioning why their printer was fucking free (with rebate).

I’ll stick with my dog. She’d never snitch on me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallic_strip

sitting on it’s morals

Assuming that’s not a typo, the phrase is “sitting on its laurels”.

Can you eat starfish?

But like…that requires work. The whole point of an AI band is to not do any work.

This is a spray and pray approach. Generate 200 songs. Hope one gets popular, make money off that from Spotify. Move on. Switch genres.