In a discussion, one should strive not just to stick to saying things that are true, but to make sure that what they're saying is both true and relevant.
People should obtain their learning material legally. True statement (at least as "true" as any opinionated value judgement can be, I guess). The question is how, though, is that statement relevant here?
Even by the NYT's own telling (the way that OpenAI obtained their articles was from the NYT's website) what OpenAI did was not illegal copyright infringement. The problem is that NYT is under the impression that allowing search engines to access their paywalled stuff and hoping they don't do anything else with it besides putting up conventional, Google-style SERPs makes for copyright infringement if what one of them actually wants it for involves other reasons. It doesn't. There's an adequate legal instrument available for NYT to use if they want to enforce conditions on use: a contract. Do they have a contract that somebody violated? If not, they have no cause to go after anyone. And if they do have a contract that was violated, then that's still not copyright infringement—it's a breach of their contract.
You seem to be confused, giving someone permission to do X is only permission to do X and nothing else.
If I open a store you have implied permission to enter the premises, but not stay inside for 16 hours. Further the second I ask you to leave you no longer have permission to be on the premises. The store doesn’t need to add a lock or put up signs, you’re aware you don’t have permission and that’s it.
Ditch the swipes; I'm not the one confused here. We're talking about copyright infringement, not trespass.
(Your analogy is bad and doesn't hold up. Copyright doesn't grant rightsholders control of the sort required here. It grants them the right to make and distribute copies. It doesn't grant the right to undistribute copies when it turns out they don't like what someone is doing with them.)
A core argument OpenAI is making is transitory copying is allowed as long training is fair use. But a permanent copy stored in a training database isn’t transitory and would itself be copyright infringement, so they don’t do that.
Thus training each version requires permission to download a new copy, which they now lack.
EDIT: The comment I first responded to (only partially reconstructible from quoted parts below) has been edited to something to something almost completely different. Very uncool.
> ChatGPT keeps redownloading works to avoid the issue of keeping permeant copy’s of the training material
I don't know enough about how ChatGPT works to know whether or not that's true, but from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong because of how insane it would be if true, and I'm not at all convinced that you're right about this given how poorly you understand the other stuff you're trying to argue that I happen to know you're wrong about, so it doesn't seem unwise to conclude that the same is probably true about your claims here. But it doesn't matter, anyway:
> which would be obvious copyright infringement
Wrong. OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out (whether/despite OpenAI having/not having "permission" or not). Not copyright infringement, let alone "obvious copyright infringement".
This is going to be my last response that takes a substantial amount of effort to compose. Arguing with /r/confidentlyincorrect-tier zero-effort Gish gallops* is not a good use of my time.
* especially from someone shameless about editing their posts after the fact to make them diverge substantially from what was originally written
> OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out
The computer said ok isn’t enough or hacking would be legal.
> from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong
An engineering standpoint is completely irrelevant, this is a pure legal matter. The law is a strange place with it’s own rules you need to actually look into it not just make assumptions.
You seem confused. I didn't eat two tamales for lunch yesterday. I ate three. Don't make assumptions.
(Why do I need to post not just one but two exhortations to follow the basic rules of conversation? If you're going to say something, then say something true, but make sure it's also relevant.)
Hitting your partner is at the very least inconsiderate to them. Depending on your jurisdiction, it's probably also varying degrees of illegal. If you need some guidance on how to communicate without expressing it in the form of physical violence, I can try to help, but ultimately it's up to you.
The way that the law is treated by courts can be very unintuitive to programmers, who often seem to think that all it takes is to construct some clever bytecode sequence for CourtVM and then you win. It doesn't work like that. There may be someone who can explain in a way that you understand better, but the short version is that you are likely to be very disappointed by treating it like something that can be "hacked".
I was using existing precedent which doesn’t act like bite code but does weigh heavily, while you were referring to intuition. Such as my point that a computer responding with yes doesn’t override a prior statement that someone doesn’t have permission to use a system which literally has hundreds of examples and isn’t in doubt. You seemingly understand you lost, but keep wanting to respond.
Thus I accept your defeat but find your continued commentary silly.
It's almost as if posting condescending explanations that don't track the discussion while smugly framing it as if you're correcting some misapprehension of the person you're interacting with is something that can be obnoxious.
It's okay if you're still confused. The world is tricky. Not everyone is equipped to reason about everything they encounter, even they see other people are, and that's okay if you can't. But if you're going to offer your interpretation you need to actually look into what the other person is arguing—not just make assumptions.
The banks are required to stress test those loans with somewhat stringent requirements. When the loans were granted they take the current retail interest and add around 3% and ensure that the loan recipient could still afford it. Last year there were stories in the NZ media around how banks were not writing loans because people were spending too much on Uber Eats etc. They were going over finances with a fine-toothed comb (there was a bit of backlash in the media, but turns out it was a good thing). NZ banks have quite a high capital reserve buffer requirement which was increased by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand a few years ago – with a lot of pushback from the banks at the time.
This is correct, and also wages are rising faster than inflation. Very very few households with mortgages are actually at risk of defaulting (so low the number is essentially zero), and both banks and households can sustain higher interest rates than we're seeing.
Much more info (with numbers and charts) in Bernard Hickey's post from a few days ago.
I know from family in NZ that the stress test banks apply is very similar to stress test we apply in Australia. As of the latest rate rise, rates are now above what banks were required to stress test for at the lowest rate loaned in 2021. I imagine New Zealand is reaching that number as well. For 90% of households this won’t matter as they purchased pre 2020/2021 so they were means test for higher rates but for households who took loans on during Covid they could theoretically really struggle when their fixed rates are up.
NSW removed all restrictions right before Omicron. They had zero of these so called “extremely strict rules” in place for the last month or so. The premier only changed tact when it became obvious that hospitals would be overwhelmed (back to day one of the pandemic).
Isn’t the point to avoid severe outbreaks in the first place, and thereby not needing extensive periods of restrictions.
I think the perfect time would be when effective oral anti-virals are readily available, they are just around the corner. The average daily cases are increasing and the 4th/5th wave (depending on location) is ramping up now - exactly the wrong time for a country like NZ to change international quarantine.
The 95%+ vaccinations rates (12+) in the three major cities and 92% overall (also 12+) would somewhat help. Along with the fact community spread is already present and has been for a few months, the measures in place have kept uncontrolled spread in check.
NZ keeps new introductions to a minimum to ensure that contact tracing is not overwhelmed and this adds to the effective decrease in reproduction offered by vaccinations. New Zealand being a season behind also allows the Northern hemisphere to burn through a wave and NZ can then decide when to lift international arrival restrictions to a time when the incidence levels are low from common arrival locales (UK, US etc).
Over the entire pandemic to date, NZ has had lower levels of restrictions than all other OECD countries. For the majority of the pandemic there were zero restrictions and businesses and people were operating as normal.
NZ had a election mid-way through the pandemic and overwhelmingly re-elected the current government based on the approach being taken. Under the MMP system the current single party government is unique (governments are normally coalitions of multiple parties – like Germany).
These talking points from right-wing media about Australia and NZ suffering and having civil liberties destroyed is so far from the truth that when seeing news items covering it from the USA, it is so absurd to be comical.
Perhaps because over the course of the pandemic only 50 people have died in NZ from Covid. Going through MIQ and the systems built around it has enabled seeding events to be limited to only several incursions supporting elimination and then suppression strategies.
It’s interesting, NZ is a very egalitarian society and it has been one of the strengths through the pandemic to date. People were/are willing to adhere to strict lockdowns (proper ones) or quarantine at the border because it was for the greater good of the entire society rather than ‘what was best’ for a handful of individuals.
The last allocation of MIQ slots had 800+ rooms that were not taken. Anyone who urgently needed to return had the ability to secure a room in December.
When Omicron appeared and it hadn’t been detected within the community in NZ it was obvious the NZ government would make changes to delay its introduction by moving to tighten MIQ settings and delaying any removal of quarantine restrictions.
All of the January and February rooms were taken. There were some rooms left for the remaining two weeks in December (likely too shot notice for many people) and March (the quarantine system was meant to mostly end by then).
I'm not a NZ citizen, nor resident nor I have interest in getting there except maybe as a tourist someday. Anyway if I would apply for entry to NZ or any other country I'd expect that all citizens jump the line in front of me, then everyone paying millions, then everybody else.
And that would be true today as NZ is not currently allowing anyone without citizenship or a residency visa in at all (with some minor exemption for touring sports teams and the performing arts)
When it comes to MIQ allocation they aren’t put ahead of anyone - everyone who has the ability to enter NZ has the same chance and ability to obtain MIQ slots.
I should have chosen my words better. The point is, given that there is limited capacity for MIQ slots -- some citizens will inevitably be bounced by pay-for-visa holders who are also in line.
Amazing isn't it. We found out who exactly essential workers were (food service, transport, medical, teachers) and also how the rules imposed on all of us were remarkably selective based on wealth. I guess we knew it, but to have it demonstrated in such stark terms has been breathtaking.
I don’t know how serious Google take GCP. BigQuery Data Transfer service has been failing with internal errors when trying to copy datasets between regions for the last 2+ days. Must be no alerting/monitoring on the service. Doesn’t instil confidence in a platform when an important part of a product can fail with no one seemingly noticing. Good luck trying to contact anyone about it as well!
