"Whoops my bad, you are right, your data may have been in the training pool. They are now forever in weights that'll be reused to train every future model. Too bad you can't do anything about it."
LLM is not a person but T&C probably states that a human moderator may view any of it. Her lawyer could probably argue a moderator filtering usage isn't the intent of the law, it was more about publishing / sending message for other humans and it was never clear to her that a human was reviewing her private diary. Shouldn't LLM disclose that at some point when people are feeding really personal stuff?
From what I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Pi/Earendil is VC-backed so it's just a matter of time really. I don't see any other end game for them as a company other than being acqui-hired. In this regard I have more faith in something like Zed (the code editor, VC-backed too) to retain their "independence".
Pi is alright but it's only virtue so far is being the Neovim of harnesses, minimal yet (incredibly) extensible. That being said it's still early days and unclear how the whole landscape regarding agentic stuff will play out at various different levels. For example I prefer stuff like Claude Code and Pi but I've seen a friend use Kiro at work with some crazy workflows all basically structured around Markdown files, spec writing, ingesting tickets from Jira and then validating/testing the code written automagically.
Sure, and expectations were met here by the readers[0]. Otherwise there would have been no award in the first place. It's just this random group with an axe to grind that's trying to stir up trouble.
It got banned from Goncourt. Looks like not disclosing AI-use didn't met expectations.
You are free to read and like it, but you do not get to dictate what other people should or should not expect. Artificial ghostwriter is not really Goncourt-ish.
You're missing 2 key bits of context: the when and the stated reason. Goncourt had the novel on their long list until this accusation surfaced, and explicitly stated that they removed it not because they found the content lacking after all (which would be a strange retrospective), but because they "had taken note of the AI and plagiarism accusations"[0] and acted thus. Goncourt has no idea if the novel was primarily done by AI or not, but they're going with the narrative because they have their brand to protect. Heck even the mud-slinging group had to use a tool, because they have no idea otherwise. And there's still not 100% certitude; all they have is a "very likely", but their narrative took like a flame to a dry forest because of the current AI controversy.
Previous comment was about people trying to watch football paying a few euros to shady business, who knows where that money lands, rather than the official offer from people who spent a lot to get the rights to broadcast.
I really don't like the implementation but I wouldn't call that tyranny. Blocking archive is much more concerning.
It's worth considering that the Spanish football league has successfully lobbied to implement widespread Cloudflare IP blocks during matches that affect websites totally unrelated to football (or to any kind of piracy). I don't watch football at all, but when there are matches I often find my normal work or home browsing activity disrupted by the blocks and have to turn on the VPN.
Considering this, I strongly believe that the ethical way to watch football in Spain is piracy. People who watch it legally are funding a mafia-like organization that harms society.
There is no ethical way to watch football. It's always funding a (or multiple) mafia-like organization.
Authorities tried to work with that provider but it required a process that doesn't scale to live events. They do not want to preemptively disallow abuses on their platform. If you leverage their shared IPs to expose your service, your traffic cannot be distinguished from abuses by traffic filtering solutions. I think they provide BYOIP, if you think your service is important enough to justify not being mixed with non-legit things. Or you can rework your architecture, this provider is not the full web.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it and would vote against IP-filtering if I was asked that specific question. I don't consider it tyrannical. Criteria for blocking IPs is clear and limited, even if blocking IPs is dumb. VPN are allowed.
By this logic removing CSAM also is censorship. This definition of censorship is valid but it doesn't convey much moral value. Removing some content, even without a trial, can be a good thing.
It's escalated to tyranny - blocking half the internet - in an alleged attempt to block petty football piracy. If your country installed cameras everywhere to "deter kidnapping" wouldn't you feel that was tyrannical?
reply