ricecake

Basing your argument around how the model or training system works doesn't seem like the best way to frame your point to me. It invites a lot of mucking about in the details of how the systems do or don't work, how humans learn, and what "learning" and "knowledge" actually are.

I'm a human as far as I know, and it's trivial for me to regurgitate my training data. I regularly say things that are either directly references to things I've heard, or accidentally copy them, sometimes with errors.
Would you argue that I'm just a statistical collage of the things I've experienced, seen or read? My brain has as many copies of my training data in it as the AI model, namely zero, but "Captain Picard of the USS Enterprise sat down for a rousing game of chess with his friend Sherlock Holmes, and then Shakespeare came in dressed like Mickey mouse and said 'to be or not to be, that is the question, for tis nobler in the heart' or something". Direct copies of someone else's work, as well as multiple copyright infringements.
I'm also shit at drawing with perspective. It comes across like a drunk toddler trying their hand at cubism.

Arguing about how the model works or the deficiencies of it to justify treating it differently just invites fixing those issues and repeating the same conversation later. What if we make one that does work how humans do in your opinion? Or it properly actually extracts the information in a way that isn't just statistically inferred patterns, whatever the distinction there is? Does that suddenly make it different?

You don't need to get bogged down in the muck of the technical to say that even if you conceed every technical point, we can still say that a non-sentient machine learning system can be held to different standards with regards to copyright law than a sentient person. A person gets to buy a book, read it, and then carry around that information in their head and use it however they want. Not-A-Person does not get to read a book and hold that information without consent of the author.
Arguing why it's bad for society for machines to mechanise the production of works inspired by others is more to the point.

Computers think the same way boats swim. Arguing about the difference between hands and propellers misses the point that you don't want a shrimp boat in your swimming pool. I don't care why they're different, or that it technically did or didn't violate the "free swim" policy, I care that it ruins the whole thing for the people it exists for in the first place.

I think all the AI stuff is cool, fun and interesting. I also think that letting it train on everything regardless of the creators wishes has too much opportunity to make everything garbage. Same for letting it produce content that isn't labeled or cited.
If they can find a way to do and use the cool stuff without making things worse, they should focus on that.

Because the headline literally says "world's first all electric train", which it very much is not.

Yup. :/

I looked it up and it's not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.

Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said "everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here's why a delay would actually be a good idea", it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.

I'm unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.

"Not offending either party" is definitely not a partisan act. It's almost the definition of nonpartisan.

I can't fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn't object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to "assist the court", it's pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf

Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn't want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don't turn up anything particularly relevant.

Well, I don't think anyone was saying don't punish political candidates, least of all me.

Being cognizant of a political context for an action just doesn't seem unreasonable to me, even if it's not how I think it should have played out.

Whatever sentence is given will have an impact on the political landscape in which that sentence is carried out, which can potentially directly undermine the sentence.

A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just "guilty but still speaking publicly".

Still don't think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.

It is actually normal for sentencing to take a while after conviction.

My bet would be that it's to avoid influencing the election rather than riots.

Whichever sentence he gives, it has the potential to make him more likely to win, thereby undermining the sentence.

Personally, I'd like to see justice happen in a way that can be blind to that outside context, but we don't live in that world.

I don't like it, but I get it.

It's the one that got raised to the supreme court and resulted in the recent immunity ruling.

He appealed the indictment, and after the ruling they tweaked things to comply, and reindicted and now it's moving to further arguments about if and how the immunity ruling applies to the new indictment.

True, but doctors will still recommend it because of you tell people they can't have any seasoning they might just ignore you.
If you tell them they can have the other stuff, they'll find it much easier to comply and it's still much better.

So, at the time (1930) ball jar actually would have qualified as big business in the sense that you mean.
Home canning was very popular and they consistently bought out smaller companies.
Since they were privately owned, it's tricky to find specifics about value, but they were "found a university", "own a company town or two", "chairman of the federal reserve" levels of rich.

So actually a pretty good use of government.

As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.

You can certainly argue that "downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training" should be treated differently from "downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder", but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.

Personally, I think it's a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can't copy it and share the copy with others.