Record them anyway. There’ll be more ways to de-anonymize them in the future.

This is definitely the type that grants wishes.

But the people making money off of all of that are mad now, hence this article.

You can’t be sued over or copyright styles. Studio Ponoc is made up of ex-Ghibli staff, and they have been releasing moves for a while. Stop spreading misinformation.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16369708/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15054592/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8223844/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6336356/

Microsoft is wasting their money on this.

The dream is dead.

I’ve gotten the deepseek-r1-0528-qwen3-8b to answer correctly once, but not consistently. Abliterated Deepseek models I’ve used in the past have been able to pass the test.

It can’t answer The Tiananmen Square question. Gonna have to wait for an abliterated one.

So you don’t interact with AI stuff outside of that? Have you seen any cool research papers or messed with any local models recently? Getting a bit of experience with the stuff can help you better inform people and see through the more bogus headlines.

It definitely seems that way depending on what media you choose to consume. You should try to balance the doomer scroll with actual research and open source news.

Ok, but is training an AI so it can plagiarize, often verbatim or with extreme visual accuracy, fair use? I see the 2 first articles argue that it is, but they don’t mention the many cases where the crawlers and scrappers ignored rules set up to tell them to piss off. That would certainly invalidate several cases of fair use

You can plagiarize with a computer with copy & paste too. That doesn’t change the fact that computers have legitimate non-infringing use cases.

Instead of charging for everything they scrap, law should force them to release all their data and training sets for free.

I agree

I’d wager 99.9% of the art and content created by AI could go straight to the trashcan and nobody would miss it. Comparing AI to the internet is like comparing writing to doing drugs.

But 99.9% of the internet is stuff that no one would miss. Things don’t have to have value to you to be worth having around. That trash could serve as inspiration for your 0.1% of people or garner feedback for people to improve.

But the law is largely the reverse. It only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon.

AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers like these only benefit the ultra-wealthy and will end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive and cumbersome for regular folks. What the people writing this article want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would jeopardize research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, and this one by Tory Noble staff attorneys at the EFF, this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, and these two by Cory Doctorow.

Aluminum sulfate in the bread, anti-freeze in the wine, and chalk in the milk.

Pure unadulterated capitalism means adulterated bread, wine, and milk.

https://whichyr.com/

WhichYear 4/22/25 4944 pts (top 1%) 1️⃣ avg. years off

🎯 1️⃣ 1️⃣ 1️⃣ 3️⃣

Now do “Speed Weed”.

An alluring oversimplification, but your cynical framework can’t account for the communities of people who put in time and effort into FOSS projects. The quality and popularity of open source alternatives has eroded the moats of proprietary services, making it impossible for them to monopolize and profit from this public technology. So if it happened the way it did, it wasn’t for the reasons stated.

I don’t think there is one single purpose. That’s a hard question to answer.

AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. Setting up barriers that only benefit the ultra-wealthy will only end with corporations gaining a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive for regular folks. And that’s before they bind users to predatory ToS, allowing them exclusive access to user data and effectively selling our own data back to us. What some people want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would imperil research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information.

They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich. The same people who abuse DMCA takedown requests for their chilling effects on fair use content now need your help to do the same thing to open source AI. Their next greatest foe after libraries, students, researchers, and the public domain. Don’t help them do it.

I recommend reading this article by Cory Doctorow, and this open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

Is Miyazaki going to go in on his son again?