I was looking into upgrading storage and ended up opting to buy 20TB in HDDs for my NAS.

I have to shuffle Steam games around but at 10Gb, it goes pretty fast (and you can run most games directly off the NAS) and the array can survive if a drive fails (ZFS).

You need the extra hardware to run the NAS but HDDs are a significantly cheaper option and you don’t need SSD speeds for most things.

The headline isn’t correct. This ruling is about a specific element of Fair Use, not a blanket declaration that copyrighted data cannot be used to train models as the headline suggests.

Fair Use requires some conditions be met. The one that wasn’t met here was that the work you’re creating can’t compete with the copyright owner.

From the Reuters article:

“Ross took the headnotes to make it easier to develop a competing legal research tool,” the judge said. “So ​Ross’s use is not transformative.”

In other cases, for example the Author’s Guild lawsuit against Meta/Anthropic/etc courts have ruled that using books to train LLMs is fair use because LLMs and books don’t compete.

They were required to pay for the books, but not prevented by copyright from using them to train a model.

There’s nothing novel happening in this case from a legal perspective. Maybe this is the first case where the defendant didn’t clear the elements of fair use but those elements predate AI by decades and have been uses in thousands of cases.

AlphaStar plays at GM level after some nerfs.

I wonder how many unsanctioned war crimes it performs in simulations.

The, probably, more relevant statistic given the interesting times we live in. (Hello future historians’ AI)

Ad companies earn money by selling your attention.

Other people in your lives, like friends, absorb a lot of your attention and that’s a potential source of revenue.

All they need to do is replace your friends with a chatbot and they have a new way to sell access to you.

“Hey I’m here if you need someone” responses to searches indicating a potential emotional vulnerability are incredibly slimy and manipulative for blatantly financial purposes.

Google isn’t much different than romance scammers trolling the Internet for vulnerable people to groom for cash.

Pretty gross

Seems odd that he made a new ad account and bypassed the spending limits.

At max, unless you’re being invoiced by Google and have a line of credit, you can spend around $500/day. It’s a lot of money, but it would still take months to hit $100,000.

Except, now, we’re not even doing that. Everybody is just shutting up, and fucking off to accept it all.

Well, there have been a few men of action.

It’s uh… extremely exotic.