There is a difference between a service and a good.
It doesnt make sense to "own" a massage just the same way it doesnt make sense to "own" spectating a game in person. The video recording of people playing a sport is a good that you can own however. This is why an online/multiplayer game is harder to separate because it straddles the line of both a service and a good, but other cases are much more clear cut. (also, a quick google does reveal multipke open source diablo projects fyi)
I think you're confusing two different axes. There is a difference between the cache state and the context state.
Imagine a conversation with turns X, Y, and Z. When the LLM "reasons" about the next token A it does: P(A | X,Y,Z) and then P(B | X,Y,Z,A), etc. It will eventually produce a result P(D | X,Y,Z,A,B,C). Instead of continuing the context from X,Y,Z,A,B,C it continues it from X,Y,Z so you have P(N | X,Y,Z,D). This is what is meant by dropping the reasoning. This is done to save cache context for the session.
This is a different thing than preserving the K/V state of P(N | X,Y,Z,D).
I hate these overly grand clickbaity statements. AI is a tool. You can use it well. You can use it poorly. "AI Slop" is the category of lazy AI tool usage. It is the same with AI code. Do you ask Claude to implement a feature and then not do a manual code review? If so, you're likely to get slop.
> The research findings “could present a challenge to those who argue that the AI model does not store or reproduce any copyright works,” said Cerys Wyn Davies, an intellectual property partner at law firm Pinsent Masons.
The defense to training with copyright is that it is the same as how humans learn from copyrighted material. The storage or reproduction is a red herring. Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well. Showing that machines can reproduce copyrighted material is no different than saying that a human can reproduce copyright material that the human learned from.
The defense to actually reproducing a work is that in order to do so, the user has to "break" the system. It is the same as how you can make legal software do illegal things (e.g. screen recorder to "steal" a movie)
None of this is to say that these defenses are correct/moral; but rather that this article doesnt add any additional input into whether it is or isnt.
I am so confused at how this is supposed to work. If the code, running in whatever language, does any sort of transform with the key that it thinks it has, doesnt this break? E.g. OAuth 1 signatures, JWTs, HMACs...
Now that I think further, doesnt this also potentially break HTTP semantics? E.g. if the key is part of the payload, then a data.replace(fake_key, real_key) can change the Content Length without actually updating the Content-Length header, right?
Lastly, this still doesnt protect you from other sorts of malicious attacks (e.g. 'DROP TABLE Users;')...Right? This seems like a mitigation, but hardly enough to feel comfortable giving an LLM direct access to prod, no?
This only works when strangers = target customer because there is no way a stranger would have the understanding of the pain you are relieving for someone when they dont feel that pain. Therefore, it can be better read as "validate your ideas on your target customer" which is kind of obvious.
Since nobody here has actually read the article, it states that the reason the posts were taken down was "prohibits incitement to terrorism praise for acts of terrorism and identification or support of terror organizations." This type of speech (incitement) is illegal in the United States and support is very borderline depending on the type and meaning of "support". Now, if the reason doesnt match the actual content removed that should definitely be addressed which is your point, but I think that the reason is valid.
Throw a signal like it would do if the process were out of memory completely and about to be killed? (for clarification, no snark intended, actual question)
It doesnt make sense to "own" a massage just the same way it doesnt make sense to "own" spectating a game in person. The video recording of people playing a sport is a good that you can own however. This is why an online/multiplayer game is harder to separate because it straddles the line of both a service and a good, but other cases are much more clear cut. (also, a quick google does reveal multipke open source diablo projects fyi)