I’ve been told that Artemis Fowl in the books is actually a nice and smart person. In the movie he comes across as an arrogant dick for a larger part.

It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.

Well. When I copy and paste source code into my program and compile it it also doesn’t retain the actual code. It’s still not allowed.

If I on the other hand read source code, remember and reapply it in a sort of similar way later on then that’s totally fine. But that’s not what OpenAI did there. There wasn’t a human involved that read the articles and then used that knowledge to adjust the LLM.

There question i would have is where is the line there? Does that mean that as soon as there is some automated process that uses the data it’s fine?

E.g. could I have a script that reads all NYT articles, extracts interesting information and provides them in a different format to users?

But they aren’t forming take aways from it. They literally used that material to build this system. I also cannot just go around and take arbitrary data from anywhere and use it to build my own program. There are licenses attached to it and I have to be mindful of who’s work I can use to build my system and who’s I can’t use without explicit permission.

Building this system isn’t looking at other folks material and forming take aways from it. It’s literally using that material as input for building the system.

Might be a fundamental difference in opinion. I don’t see us anywhere near anything related to artificial life.

What they’ve built there is a product, a computer program and they used other folks data to build it without getting their permission. I also cannot go and just copy and paste source code from all over the internet to build my program. There are licenses attached to it that determine what you can or can’t do with it.

I feel like just because the term “learning” is involved people no longer view it as simply building or programming a system. Which it is.

But there is no one learning from it. It serves as a building block / source material to build these LLMs. I feel like the fact that it’s called learning gives folks the impression that it’s similar to what a human would do.

This comparison doesn’t make sense to me. If the person then makes money off it: yes.

Otherwise the question would be if copyright law should be abolished entirely. E.g. if I create a new news portal with content copied form other source, would that be okay then?

You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

Ah it will be at done point

And still it’s basically all Google.

Super easy. Especially since this is all under their control. So they could simply write those messages elsewhere if they wanted to. I’m not saying they do, but it’s technically possible and a walk in the park.

I would generally trust such a company to do it right. But that doesn’t save you when law enforcement and such get involved.

Yes you should. Because it’s not e2e encrypted then.

It’s also about the people though. Been living in the south for some time. Hard to talk to people, even harder to make friends, very rural for the most part. I even would describe a city like Stuttgart as rural. At work people approached me and said „hey you also aren’t from the south right? I noticed“ and were happy to have someone to chitchat with.

Just my own experience… I’m very happy to have made the decision to move away again.

Maybe it’s easy if one isn’t a German since there are kind of expat communities? I don’t know.

No they didn’t? My company just recently introduced it.

I’m unsure of many people know that StackOverflow also had enterprise offerings. Our company has their own StackOverflow instance with very specific content to our tech stacks.

Yeah right. It’s that easy :D

What value does Blockchain provide here? It feels like none whatsoever.

But what value does Blockchain bring to the table here that other technologies wouldn’t?

These sound more like publicity stunts than anything else. There isn’t really much value in running a private Blockchain. At that point it lost all value a Blockchain would provide. Who are you protecting yourself against?

But you would still need an authority that can unilaterally make changes to these ownership records. People die, things get lost, stuff happens. So it can’t all be based on signing with private keys of individual persons. At that point: Why not run a central database of it all. It’s cheaper, more efficient and you could still publish a public record for traceability.

I really don’t see any problem that Blockchain could solve better than other solutions. Except Cryptocurrency.

Just fyi: That person was trying to make a joke.