barrucadu

How does OpenAI being liable for reproducing copyrighted material imply that a word processor should be as well? Last time I checked, word processors don't have a black box text generator trained on pre-existing works: a word processor only has the text that the user types into it.

> Not really. Youtube is not liable as long as they remove the content after a copyright complain and other mechanisms.

They have to take action precisely because they're liable for the material on their platform.

barrucadu

8 bulan yang laludiscuss

I take it you think copyright shouldn't exist at all, then?

barrucadu

8 bulan yang laludiscuss

Obviously there's a limit, reproducing a single sentence is unlikely to be copyright infringement just because there are only so many words in a language; but if reproducing some text would be copyright infringement if a human did it, I don't see why LLM companies should get a free pass.

If it's really essential that they train their models on song lyrics, or books, or movie scripts, or articles, or whatever, they should pay license fees.

barrucadu

8 bulan yang laludiscuss

> I don’t think a country’s government can justify no commercial LLMs to its populace

They're not saying no LLMs, they're saying no LLMs using lyrics without a license. OpenAI simply need to pay for a license, or train an LLM without using lyrics.

barrucadu

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

> These are both bad outcomes

Why?

barrucadu

6 tahun yang laludiscuss

Add is a piece of data, not a function. The equivalent in C would be something like:

    enum function { add, ... };

    // then inside your code
    switch(myfunction) {
    case add:
        return a + b;
    ...

Defunctionalisation is about removing higher-order functions, not about naming anonymous functions.

It's not a new trend, the first citation on wikipedia is to a paper in 1972.