People publish stuff on the Internet for various reasons. Sometimes they want to share information, but if the information is shared, they want to be *attributed* as the authors.
> If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.
There is some nuance here that you fail to notice or you pretend you don't see it :D I can't copy-paste a computer program and resell it without a license. I can't say "Oh I've just read the bits, learned from it and based on this knowledge I created my own computer program that looks exactly the same except the author name is different in the »About...« section" - clearly, some reason has to be used to differentiate reading-learning-creating from simply copying...
What if instead of copy-pasting the digital code, you print it onto a film, pass the light through the film onto ants, make the light kill the ants exposed, and the rest of the ants eventually go away, and now use the dead ants as another film to somehow convert that back to digital data. You can now argue you didn't copy, you taught ants, the ants learned, and they created a new program. But you will fool no one. AI models don't actually learn, they are a different way the data is stored. I think when court decides if a use is fair and transformative enough, it investigates how much effort was put into this transformation: there was a lot of effort put into creating the AI, but once it was created, the effort put into any single work is nearly null, just the electricity, bandwidth, storage.
> There is some nuance here that you fail to notice or you pretend you don't see it :D
I could say the same for you:
> I can't copy-paste a computer program and resell it without a license. I can't say "Oh I've just read the bits, learned from it and based on this knowledge I created my own computer program that looks exactly the same except the author name is different in the »About...« section"
Nobody uses LLMs to copy others' code. Nobody wants a carbon-copy of someone else's software, if that's what they wanted they would have used those people's software. I mean maybe someone does but that's not the point of LLMs and it's not why people use them.
I use LLMs to write code for me some times. I am quite sure that nobody in history has ever written that code. It's not copied from anyone, it's written specifically to solve the given task. I'm sure it's similar to a lot of code out there, I mean it's not often we write truly novel stuff. But there's nothing wrong with that. Most websites are pretty similar. Most apps are pretty similar. Developers all over the world write the same-ish code every day.
And if you don't want anyone to copy your precious code then don't publish it. That's the most ironic thing about all this - you put your code on the internet for everyone to see and then you make a big deal about the possibility of an LLM copying it as a response to a prompt?
Bro if I wanted your code I could go to your public github repo and actually copy it, I don't need an LLM to do that for me. Don't publish it if you're so worried about being copied.
Here's a hint. When someone makes a reference to something that was actively debated for decades, and you're not familiar with said debates, you should probably assume that you're missing some piece of relevant knowledge.
Of course it can. With how one-sided TOS typically is, it is unlikely, I don't see how one could obtain certainty about TOS being absolutely one-sided and not putting any burden on the service provider, therefore TOS, being an agreement between two sides, absolutely can be violated by either of the sides.
> It's incredible how people mental gymnastics there way into a solution that provides themselves all the benefit and pat themselves on the back for being morally righteous.
I noticed it too, but it's not an argument. I could say something similar e.g.
> It's incredible how corporations mental gymnastics there way into defending their interest that provides themselves all the benefit and pat themselves on the back for being morally righteous.
In either case, it would be nice to read an actual argument.
> When you don't like something, you don't use it.
This is not true, People use stuff they don't like all the time. Should they stop? You may not like to use a bus, but it may be your only means of transportation. You could then argue one should like what he has no alternative to, but I don't see how ones emotional attitude relates to morality.
> It sends a clear message that you don't like the product/service.
Are people morally obliged to send this message? I don't see how this argument relates to morality.
> Using it and not compensating for it (because you actually do like it, just on your terms) is not moral or a good signal in anyway way, shape, or form.
Again, not everyone necessarily likes what he uses, but I can agree, most people use Youtube because they like it, and in particular, people use Youtube with adblocking because they like Youtube without ads. But where is the argument for it being immoral?
You could start with some probably agreeable statement like "Everyone should be paid for his work" and go from there, and then maybe I or someone else could point out some error in the reasoning, but currently your whole post reads as "what you do is immoral because I say so" - there is no proper argument.
The reason youtube has no competitors is exactly because of this stupid childish reasoning that everyone here has.
It's amazing how you can talk to seemingly intelligent people, and then when you say "Services cost money, and you should either honor your end of the agreement or forgo the service" they somehow get deranged and start with these wordy long dialogues about "well actually it's my computer and I can chose what I want to display on it and, and, and..."
Go read the story of Vid.me, the only serious youtube competitor to come around in a decade. They went bankrupt because it turns out those childish wordy dialogue preachers actually just dont't want to see ads or pay subscriptions. They just want a charity streaming service for their entertainment. Must be such a huge surprise for you to hear that....
Sponsorblock uses community driven marking of ads edited into the video.
I think you're right, that you wouldn't be able to skip an ad at the beginning of the video - you would need to predict for the user he will want to watch a video to load it earlier in the background to skip the ad, so only skipping ads in middle of the video would be possible.
> you would need to predict for the user he will want to watch a video to load it earlier in the background to skip the ad
Not sure I understand this. I don't think it's possible even now to load the video in the background, youtube is already smarter than this and it will load a short period of time whenever u seek anywhere, it doesn't just download the whole thing if you pause the video.
And the way I'm suggesting wouldn't be mitigated by sponsorblock since you wouldn't be able to skip it if you want to stream the video. Only way would be to use yt-dlp and remove the ads automatically but I suspect a tiny percentage of users would go to that length to avoid ads
Imagine that you open the video on one tab, see where the ad IN MIDDLE of the video is (e.g. because of a system like Sponsorblock, other users reported it), click on progress bar to go after the ad, the system is probably smart enough to show the ad anyway - OK, you mute the ad, and open the same video again, and watch it from the beginning. By the time you get to the ad, you can switch to the other tab, where the ad already played.
Of course it wouldn't work if the ad was at the beginning.
The way I imagined it you wouldn't know where the ad is, they can insert it on the fly at any point. It wouldn't count in the video seek bar.. at any random point they want they can just insert it and you can do nothing about it except mute it and wait it out.
In such case take the worst (maybe disregarding 20% worst) ad length, and open a copy of the video advanced by that length. As soon as the ad starts to play, switch to the copy of the video. Of course you could be unlucky and the copy could get the ad at the different video time but same playback time. You could decrease the chance of it happening by additional copies, but the ads take small enough percentage of the time for 3-4 copies to make it very rare for such an overlap to happen.
Edit: actually, you could make a double buffer, so if you assume the ad takes up to 10 s, the copy of your video can skip 20 first seconds, play, eventually play an ad if it happens first on that copy, continue playing, and as soon as the main video get an add, go back on the copy to the right spot. So in order for this to fail, with just one copy, you need to either get an ad during the first 10 seconds, or the ad has to start exactly (within the lag time of let's say 50-200 ms) at the same time on both copies.
Try taking a look at Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow for other things than programming) - it's not perfect of course, but IMO the site's format promotes cold arguments.
> If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.
There is some nuance here that you fail to notice or you pretend you don't see it :D I can't copy-paste a computer program and resell it without a license. I can't say "Oh I've just read the bits, learned from it and based on this knowledge I created my own computer program that looks exactly the same except the author name is different in the »About...« section" - clearly, some reason has to be used to differentiate reading-learning-creating from simply copying...
What if instead of copy-pasting the digital code, you print it onto a film, pass the light through the film onto ants, make the light kill the ants exposed, and the rest of the ants eventually go away, and now use the dead ants as another film to somehow convert that back to digital data. You can now argue you didn't copy, you taught ants, the ants learned, and they created a new program. But you will fool no one. AI models don't actually learn, they are a different way the data is stored. I think when court decides if a use is fair and transformative enough, it investigates how much effort was put into this transformation: there was a lot of effort put into creating the AI, but once it was created, the effort put into any single work is nearly null, just the electricity, bandwidth, storage.