What catalyst? There’s no chemical process here.

And the easiest way to do that is to not include infringing material in the first place.

If your work depends on the original, such that it could not exist without it, it’s derivative.

I can easily create a pixel of any arbitrary color, so it’s sufficiently transformative that it’s considered a separate work.

The four fair use tests are pretty reliable in making a determination.

The for-profit large-scale media blender is the problem. When it’s a human writing Harry Potter fan fiction, it’s fine. When a company sells a tool for you to write thousands of trash “books” for profit, it’s a problem.

There are dozens, depending on what exactly you want to do.

Because that would be sufficiently transformative, and passes all the fair use tests with flying colors.

If you cut up the book into paragraphs, sentences, and phrases, and rearranged them to make and sell your own books, then you are likely to fail each of the four tests.

But even if you manage to cut those pieces up so fine that you can’t necessarily tell where they come from in the source material, there is enough contained in the output that it is clearly drawing directly on source material.

Yes, Motorola is making products in the Razr line.

What exactly is the change being made? I don’t see that the article actually explains it anywhere.

That’s not in question. It doesn’t need to contain the training data to be a derivative work, and therefore a potential infringement.

Simple operations like vector multiplication are not works for the purposes of copyright law. If you invented an entirely new form of math, complete with novel formulae, you could conceivably assert patent rights and/or copyright over it, especially if you published a textbook. It would be more relevant, however, to discuss complex algorithms, such as for data compression. Those can certainly be patented. And, when implemented as a computer program, can certainly be copyrighted.

But if you’re just defining one simple operation, yeah, you’re unlikely to be able to assert any rights over it.

The product of that analysis does not contain the data itself, and so is not a violation of copyright.

That’s your opinion, not the opinion of a court or legislature. LLM products are directly derived from and dependent upon the training data, so it is positively considered a derivative work. However, whether it’s considered sufficiently transformative, or whether it passes the fair use test, has not to my knowledge been determined in court. (Note that I am assuming US law here.)

Wildstar was cool. I got a free shirt and Logitech keyboard out of their booth at PAX one year. (Never played the game, though.)

Yes, it should at least be kids’. Kids robot doesn’t make sense.

Well, when you find out how to eliminate the human from the equation, you let me know.

Seems like the balances of power worked properly here, though. The president went rogue, and the rest of the government told him to get fucked.

Even a lot of parliamentary systems have presidents, with similar controls. The problem with the US is that the legislature has been enabling executive power creep for centuries. If they’re already not acting in good faith, no amount of social rules will keep them in check.

If you don’t trust the server you’re connecting to, why are you connecting to it in the first place? The only difference between ECH and no ECH is that encryption starts earlier.

Drupal has been the main competitor for decades, but the biggest difference is that it’s not blog-style with a timeline of posts, it’s nodes and categories.

One of the big selling points of Wordpress has been customization, so it’s unlikely you’ll be able to directly transfer anything more than the raw post. Any plugins you were relying on will not exist.

This doesn’t really make sense in the Lemmy model inherited from reddit. A post belongs to a specific community, you can’t put one post in multiple communities. You can crosspost, and from there you can jump to the original and see its comments, but the comments on a crosspost belong to the second community.

Maybe a crosspost should not have a second comments section, and opening it should always send you to the original post, but I don’t think that’s desirable. For example, if I’m banned from the first community, should I be forbidden from commenting on the post when it’s crossposted to my second community?

That was fast.