Kevin Russell
@kevinrns@mstdn.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 days ago
Chip Booty 👻🍑 and 3 others boosted
Martin Owens :inkscape:
@doctormo@floss.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 days ago
Martin Owens :inkscape:
@doctormo@floss.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 days ago
Talia Hussain
@Talia@mstdn.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 days ago
calvin 🛋️
calvin 🛋️ liked this activity
Script Kiddie
@scriptkiddie@anonsys.net  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Script Kiddie
@scriptkiddie@anonsys.net  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Nicole Hennig
@nic221@techhub.social  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Script Kiddie
@scriptkiddie@anonsys.net  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Script Kiddie
@scriptkiddie@anonsys.net  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Nicole Hennig
@nic221@techhub.social  ·  activity timestamp 4 days ago
Text Shot: The unprecedented surge in aggressive crawler traffic, coinciding with the release of commercial generative AI models, has forced libraries to rapidly evolve our approach to network and application security. While the timing strongly suggests connections to AI training, we cannot definitively attribute these activities to specific organizations or purposes. Regardless of intent, the impact on library services has been substantial, requiring significant financial and human resources to maintain stable access for our human users. The libraries and archives community has developed a multi-layered defense strategy that has proven, to date, to be somewhat effective against even the most aggressive and evasive crawlers. We have continued to experience intermittent service disruptions related to this traffic, and some of our peers now require logins for catalog access and block access to increasingly broad sets of IP addresses, sometimes representing entire countries. Although…
Text Shot: The unprecedented surge in aggressive crawler traffic, coinciding with the release of commercial generative AI models, has forced libraries to rapidly evolve our approach to network and application security. While the timing strongly suggests connections to AI training, we cannot definitively attribute these activities to specific organizations or purposes. Regardless of intent, the impact on library services has been substantial, requiring significant financial and human resources to maintain stable access for our human users. The libraries and archives community has developed a multi-layered defense strategy that has proven, to date, to be somewhat effective against even the most aggressive and evasive crawlers. We have continued to experience intermittent service disruptions related to this traffic, and some of our peers now require logins for catalog access and block access to increasingly broad sets of IP addresses, sometimes representing entire countries. Although…
Text Shot: The unprecedented surge in aggressive crawler traffic, coinciding with the release of commercial generative AI models, has forced libraries to rapidly evolve our approach to network and application security. While the timing strongly suggests connections to AI training, we cannot definitively attribute these activities to specific organizations or purposes. Regardless of intent, the impact on library services has been substantial, requiring significant financial and human resources to maintain stable access for our human users. The libraries and archives community has developed a multi-layered defense strategy that has proven, to date, to be somewhat effective against even the most aggressive and evasive crawlers. We have continued to experience intermittent service disruptions related to this traffic, and some of our peers now require logins for catalog access and block access to increasingly broad sets of IP addresses, sometimes representing entire countries. Although…
Nicole Hennig
@nic221@techhub.social  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Text Shot: Our focus is on the output of generative AI. LLM output generally doesn’t infringe copyright because it isn’t substantially similar to the protectable expression of any of the inputs on which the AI is trained. There are exceptions, often traceable to duplications in the training dataset or to deliberate efforts by the user to prompt infringement. And particular models seem to “memorize” certain works for reasons scholars don’t fully understand. But for the most part, if you ask generative AI to give you a paper on a topic, it won’t give you anything much like a particular prior paper. From a copyright perspective, that should be the end of the question. But it isn’t. Complaints in these lawsuits (and related press) often raise the concern that the authors aren’t only uncompensated—they also aren’t getting credit for the use of their work. And when they do, they often turn to the language of plagiarism. Content creators are fond ofreferring to generative AI as “nothing…
Harry W.
@hazz223@mstdn.social  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago
Home Login