How are you tracking them to other sites? There’s not really anything that links a user account to an actual person in the data that gets federated.

Do they need to be able to fight across the entire Pacific? Their most likely adversaries are right next door and their most likely ally is the dominant naval power already.

I any money spent on a large carrier would probably be better spent on other things. You can spend 10 billion on a single carrier or get a fleet of ~100 F-35s. I would guess mid-air refueling and more planes will get more sorties over likely targets in a conflict than a carrier would.

I also don’t think carriers are going to be the dominant sea power force in a future peer conflict. I think the submarine will dominate the next war. The carrier will be regulated to power projection after the sea is won and made safe to operate in.

I was kind of thinking something similar. How close would you be willing to physically get to him knowing that at any moment there might be an assassination attempt?

You are kind of hitting on one of the issues I see. The model and the works created by the model may b considered two separate things. The model itself may not be infringing in of itself. It’s not actually substantially similar to any of the individual training data. I don’t think anyone can point to part of it and say this is a copy of a given work. But the model may be able to create works that are infringing.

That is not actually one of the criteria for fair use in the US right now. Maybe that’ll change but it’ll take a court case or legislation to do.

A woman has her own value and that value decreases by men looking at her.

I didn’t know men had that kind of super power. The ability to decrease value of something just by looking at it. Can we harness this power to decrease home prices?

NPR reported that a “top concern” is that ChatGPT could use The Times’ content to become a “competitor” by “creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper’s staff.”

That’s something that can currently be done by a human and is generally considered fair use. All a language model really does is drive the cost of doing that from tens or hundreds of dollars down to pennies.

To defend its AI training models, OpenAI would likely have to claim “fair use” of all the web content the company sucked up to train tools like ChatGPT. In the potential New York Times case, that would mean proving that copying the Times’ content to craft ChatGPT responses would not compete with the Times.

A fair use defense does not have to include noncompetition. That’s just one factor in a fair use defense and the other factors may be enyon their own.

I think it’ll come down to how “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes” and “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;” are interpreted by the courts. Do we judge if a language model by the model itself or by the output itself? Can a model itself be uninfringing and it still be able to potentially produce infringing content?

The scale of the support provided is very different. While Germany and others have been provided support, I would be concerned if the USA was to withdraw theirs. It would take all other supporters doubling or tripling their aid to make up the loss. Not an impossible task but also not a small one.

I wouldn’t compare Belgium sans Gulfstream to Winnipeg. Center of a continent vs by an ocean makes a big difference no matter the latitude. I think it would be much more fair to compare it to someplace like St. John’s. It will still be colder but not to the same extent.