kopecs

6 ms·

1.
by kopecs 11mo ago
Do you not think it a bit too hyperbolic to throw scare quotes around experts and imply the only people who can have opinions on systemic risk are software engineers? I don't think it is unreasonable for people who haven't run or
2.
by kopecs 1y ago
Assuming you're referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, Thaler claimed to the copyright office that the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". So the question of "if you claim
3.
by kopecs 1y ago
I think the suggestion is that the government use of that public data could be such as to create a chilling effect. That is, the upload and interaction of the user with the private company is almost irrelevant: it is just part of the antece
4.
by kopecs 1y ago
AIUI Because if you have a zero data retention agreement you are necessarily not in the class of records at issue (since enterprise customers records are not affected, again AIUI per platinffs' original motion which might be because th
5.
by kopecs 1y ago
I don't think it is accurate to say that the data becomes the government's or they have to act as an informant (I think that implies a bit more of an active requirement than responding to a subpoena), but I agree with the gist.
6.
by kopecs 1y ago
Do you think the 4th amendment enjoins courts from requiring the preservation of records as part of discovery? The court is just requiring OpenAI to maintain records it already maintains and segregate them. Even if one thinks that _is_ a go
7.
by kopecs 1y ago
Well, presumably the claim would be that a factor in their not having taxable income was the fact that they didn't have to amortize their development cost.
8.
by kopecs 1y ago
> Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cu
9.
by kopecs 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
10.
by kopecs 1y ago
There already was a verdict (for the Times) but it was thrown out on appeal. This is a re-do. ETA: I looked up the docket [0] and in fact, this was the second appeal (See ECF 64). There was also an appeal on a prior MTD, hence the extreme d
11.
by kopecs 1y ago
Probably https://free.law/ ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
12.
by kopecs 1y ago
I would think it makes some amount of sense if you think they're vegetarian for some moral reason and you think you could court them to become customers.
13.
by kopecs 1y ago
Why do you think that? This obviously does not preclude copyright interests from existing in works which were generated using "AI" as a blanket rule; rather, this is about the fact that the applicant persistent in insisting that t
14.
by kopecs 1y ago
What comparison do you think the parent comment is making? They just vaguely gesture at corporate personhood and say "what about that?" My best reading of it is "can 'they' say that corporations can author works?&qu
15.
by kopecs 1y ago
Yes, I agree. I don't think I am saying anything inconsistent with that.
16.
by kopecs 1y ago
Code is not purely functional. If it is, it is not copyrightable (at least in the US; probably true elsewhere but I am less sure) [0]. I would not expect most prompts to be purely functional. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/c
17.
by kopecs 2y ago
> What I can guarantee, is that the prompt itself would be copyright-able. That's non-obvious to me. Even if the prompt is extremely long and precise, if it is somehow purely functional, it seems possible for it to not be (although
18.
by kopecs 2y ago
In what way do you think corporate personhood is relevant here?
19.
by kopecs 2y ago
I don't think it takes that much imagination here. Not sure what good the first step is actually doing you. Might as well just AI-generate your racketeering demand letters without doing that part.
20.
by kopecs 2y ago
As a matter of law? Sure it does. Thaler said the image at issue was "autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine". He's been trying to walk that back for the last couple of years though. See Thaler v.
21.
by kopecs 2y ago
> Copyright only protects the actual text. LLMs have weights, not exact copies. Following this logic a lossily compressed image is completely unprotected by copyright. > In any case, saying "if I put in some input and get copyrig
22.
by kopecs 2y ago
I think this is discussed at length in part II.D (starts at the bottom of 17). I would write more but I have spent too long already on this thread :) I would be a bit careful about trying to liken motivation for something like an EO to a la
23.
by kopecs 2y ago
> Right, I'm saying they based it on on the "text" of the law, instead of the motivation. Sure, although they do discuss TikTok's challenge to the motivation ("Petitioners further argue that the Act is underinclu
24.
by kopecs 2y ago
> It absolutely does. (It’s in the opinion.) The opinion actually assumes without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applies, so I don't think it "absolutely" does. (But yes, it probably does and Sotomayor and Gorsuch
25.
by kopecs 2y ago
The quote you posted is about if the exclusion of platforms "whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews" means the law is content-based, but the Court is sa
26.
by kopecs 2y ago
In America each party typically bears their own costs.
27.
by kopecs 2y ago
I believe each transaction has to be over $100 and there's a total limit on the number of pay over time plans you can have active. But yes, other than the dollar amount, I've not seen anything not be eligible.
28.
by kopecs 2y ago
> If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem. This isn't true. At least with respect to "soundalike" see, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 and Midler v. F
29.
by kopecs 2y ago
It seems like a fair take to me. Certainly plenty of companies, HashiCorp included, would have fewer choices about how to license future code if they made different decisions regarding contributions. But something like: > I wonder if the
30.
by kopecs 2y ago
I don't believe so (although this is probably fact-specific about what "accidentally" means), at least with regards to retracting the licence . The GPL is an irrevocable licence. They could choose not to continue to distribu

More ›