> you can't express emotions if you don't have any
That feels off. When I watch an actor on screen conveying emotions, there's no actual human being feeling those emotions as I watch their movie. Very dumb machines have already been rendering emotions convincingly for a while in that way, and their rendering impacts our own emotional state.
Emotions expressed through tone of voice are just one mean of nonverbal communication. We should expect more of those to develop and become more widely available next.
In a way, we're lucky all that gpt-4o seems to be hell bent on communicating how cheerful and happy it is so far, because it's certainly not the only option.
Humans can be manipulated through nonverbal communications, in a way that's harder to consciously spot than through words, and a model that's able to craft its "emotional output" would not be far from being able to use it to adjust its interlocutor or audience's frame of mind.
I for one look forward to the arrival of our increasingly charismatic and oddly convincing LLMs.
Fair points, within the context that IP rights are fundamentally made up and shifting rights crafted to balance the concerns and interests of various parties.
I can't tell where this is going to land. Right now, we're seeing a number of parties trying to put metaphorical barbed wire in the newfound prairie of ML models, each struggling to influence the prevalent wisdom of how IP rights should apply to this context.
We could easily end up in a universe where LLMs are a licensing minefield where every copyright owner of any part of their training data gets rights on the model, become essentially unmanageable without relying on helpful licensing middlemen that smooth out the right for LLMs to exist, at a cost.
We could just as well end up with LLMs being recognized as not being derivative works themselves, albeit able to generate derivative works, a much less advantageous situation for creatives and their middlemen who see their creative output as being pirated, to reuse a familiar term of IP rights propaganda.
It'd be a little surprising to me if we ended up in a situation where the work needed to produce good LLMs wasn't associated with any commensurate IP rights on the results, and I expect the megacorps investing billions into this will find it in their heart to throw a few millions toward lobbying efforts to ensure that this isn't the outcome.
They don’t obviously fall under copyright, patent, or trademark—those are the only options for IP.
You can enter into general business contracts that govern how the parties make use of data. This happens all the time with all kinds of data sources: business listings, GIS, credit scores, etc.
If I copy of this kind of data, I might be breaking a contract and committing a tort, but I am not violating copyrights. If a third party gets the data without a contract in place and makes use of it, they are not violating copyright either; the liability falls on the contracted party that let the data get out.
But licenses of the kind proposed on models are inapplicable. Imagine how bizarre it would be if the phone book came with a license stating “you may only use the information for non-commercial purposes.” The phone book publisher would get laughed out of court and maybe even penalized for frivolous lawsuits.
> Anti-backup, Anti-I-don't-have-a-cdrom-on-this-machine, Anti-I-lost-the-stupid-dongle, etc.
All perfectly understandable to me. But from the perspective of the people designing the anti-something system, wouldn't they call it piracy?
We can argue if piracy is a charitable enough name for bypassing copyright protections but that's irrelevant in terms of whether or not that is the thing the software provider is trying to do.
>I think scraping websites that don't require authentication is legal in the US nowadays.
The LinkedIn lawsuit resolved to that conclusion, though I think LI is appealing again.
It basically says the site can't take legal action against scrapers of public (non-auth protected) info. Still, there's nothing that says they have to make it easy for you, to include deploying anti-scraping measures, rate limits, redesigns and moving data behind auth.
OP Here! Yes I don't know the law well but common sense tells me that its one thing to copyright a brand, logo, movie, or anything creative, and it's another to copyright numbers on a database.
The only argument Zillow can against me (imo) is that I'm being a burden on their servers at scale.
By far the best feature of the minitel 1B for a kid like me with no budget was that it was free, as long as you could get your hands on one.
I have fond memories of endlessly annoying my parents and the local post office in my quest to get that model, the only free one with a plug i could connect to my PC. Good times.
Chrome sets it if you tell it you want to use its spellchecker with some languages.
I'm not sure what the standard says, but i suspect you'd surprise users considerably less if you used the first language listed in that header rather than the last (assuming equal or missing q values).
Speaking of python things, there's an actively developed JavaScript implementation of tensorflow called tensorflow.js, which has its own set of backends to leverage GPUs in browsers or in node.js though webGL, webgpu or node bindings into c++ stuff to get cuda support, alongside wasm and pure js implementations.
I've used it! My gripe is that I'm not fond of their async implementations, it blows up the code when I want to do something simple. I understand the tradeoff is there in order to utilize external hardware for bigger tensor applications, but sometimes I just want a thin API for n-dimensional operations... like ... well, you know what I'm going to say. :)
That feels off. When I watch an actor on screen conveying emotions, there's no actual human being feeling those emotions as I watch their movie. Very dumb machines have already been rendering emotions convincingly for a while in that way, and their rendering impacts our own emotional state.
Emotions expressed through tone of voice are just one mean of nonverbal communication. We should expect more of those to develop and become more widely available next.
In a way, we're lucky all that gpt-4o seems to be hell bent on communicating how cheerful and happy it is so far, because it's certainly not the only option.
Humans can be manipulated through nonverbal communications, in a way that's harder to consciously spot than through words, and a model that's able to craft its "emotional output" would not be far from being able to use it to adjust its interlocutor or audience's frame of mind.
I for one look forward to the arrival of our increasingly charismatic and oddly convincing LLMs.