And they're all with different commit message:

"switched arse to bottom to create a more uplifting vibe"

"took arse out and put bottom in to keep my language warm and friendly"

"thought bottom would sound a lot nicer than arse, so I used it"

And so on..

Type in "Is Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate

...and any good search engine will find results containing keywords such as "Kamala Harris", "Democratic", "candidate", and "good".

[...] you might ask if she's a "bad" Democratic candidate instead

In that case, of course the search engine will find results containing keywords such as "Kamala Harris", "Democratic", "candidate", and "bad".

So the whole premise that, "Fundamentally, that's an identical question" is just bullshit when it comes to searching. Obviously, when you put in the keyword "good", you'll find articles containing "good", and if you put in the keyword "bad", you'll find articles containing "bad" instead.

Google will find things that match the keywords that you put in. So does DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, whatever. That is what a good search engine is supposed to do.

I can assure you, when search engines stop doing that, and instead try to give "balanced" results, according to whatever opaque criteria for "balanced" their company comes up with, that will be the real problem.

I don't like Google, and only use google when other search engines fail. But this article is BS.

TesseraC+

And who hasn't contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).

1. This is not REALLY about copyright - this is an attack on free and open AI models, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if copyright was extended to cover the case of using the works for training.
2. It's not stealing. There is literally no resemblance between the training works and the model. IP rights have been continuously strengthened due to lobbying over the last century and are already absurdly strong, I don't understand why people on here want so much to strengthen them ever further.

Linux can totally do that. Even if your distro doesn't package it, you can always install spyware from source.

threads.net is currently blocked. You can see a complete list of blocked instances here. There was a discussion about this when threads first announced plans to federate.

Also, bundling extensions with the browser is not the way to cater to power users - they will install the extensions they want anyway.

If gecko became embeddable (or better yet, servo was finished), so users could make alternative firefox-based browsers, that would be really good for power users. Right now things like qutebrowser are all based on blink, because that's the only option.

They have the right to ingest data, not because they're “just learning like a human would". But because I - a human - have a right to grab all data that's available on the public internet, and process it however I want, including by training statistical models. The only thing I don't have a right to do is distribute it (or works that resemble it too closely).

In you actually show me people who are extracting books from LLMs and reading them that way, then I'd agree that would be piracy - but that'd be such a terrible experience if it ever works - that I can't see it actually happening.

You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century. But instead of the reactionary sentiment to just reject the new, we should be pushing for ways to have it work for everyone.

No.

• A pen manufacturer should not be able to decide what people can and can't write with their pens.
• A computer manufacturer should not be able to limit how people use their computers (I know they do - especially on phones and consoles - and seem to want to do this to PCs too now - but they shouldn't).
• In that exact same vein, writers should not be able to tell people what they can use the books they purchased for.

.

We 100% need to ensure that automation and AI benefits everyone, not a few select companies. But copyright is totally the wrong mechanism for that.

We need to see the actual artwork to know if it has something infringing. This link means little.