“Reading” is the act of viewing the unaltered text.
Something “what” cannot do. LLMs have no concept of text, only the physical manifestation of text, applying transformations on that physical manifestation – just like glasses.
Does this mean that the original data was “stored in a retrieval system” without permission
Information is stored within glasses, at least for a short period of time. So, yes, you have created a storage and retrieval system when you use glasses. They would be useless otherwise. If that’s illegal, I hope you have good vision. Except your eye does the same thing, so…
it isn’t going to be simple to sort out
It only needs to be as difficult as we want it to be. And there is no reason to make it difficult.
. . . Wow. I’m going to be polite and assume that you never took physics in high school, instead of failing the unit on optics. Might want to bone up on that before you make an argument that deals with the physics of lenses, just sayin’.
You don’t appear to have much understanding of how the law operates either. It’s always complicated and difficult, and judges take a dim view of people who try to twist words around to mean something other than the contract defines them to mean.
I’m going to be polite and assume that you never took physics in high school
Polite would be to explain yourself, not turn to a silly logical fallacy that adds nothing and is in bad faith. Always telling when this happens.
It’s always complicated and difficult
We can make it difficult. It doesn’t need to be. Especially when there is nothing new here. We’ve been reading books into neural networks for 50-plus years. That we’ve happened to achieved a speed milestone doesn’t change anything legally. It isn’t that a speed limit was violated.
Something “what” cannot do. LLMs have no concept of text, only the physical manifestation of text, applying transformations on that physical manifestation – just like glasses.
Information is stored within glasses, at least for a short period of time. So, yes, you have created a storage and retrieval system when you use glasses. They would be useless otherwise. If that’s illegal, I hope you have good vision. Except your eye does the same thing, so…
It only needs to be as difficult as we want it to be. And there is no reason to make it difficult.
. . . Wow. I’m going to be polite and assume that you never took physics in high school, instead of failing the unit on optics. Might want to bone up on that before you make an argument that deals with the physics of lenses, just sayin’.
You don’t appear to have much understanding of how the law operates either. It’s always complicated and difficult, and judges take a dim view of people who try to twist words around to mean something other than the contract defines them to mean.
Polite would be to explain yourself, not turn to a silly logical fallacy that adds nothing and is in bad faith. Always telling when this happens.
We can make it difficult. It doesn’t need to be. Especially when there is nothing new here. We’ve been reading books into neural networks for 50-plus years. That we’ve happened to achieved a speed milestone doesn’t change anything legally. It isn’t that a speed limit was violated.