Wow, you’re either not very smart, or are not aware of the state of the world.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-euv-machines-are-equipped-with-a-remote-self-destruct-in-case-of-an-invasion

If you’re talking a tagged VLAN, it doesn’t work like that.

It’s pretty spot on. It takes years to get a fab up to speed, and they’ve been stealing US IP shipped over there for manufacturing for over a decade. They’ll try to annex Taiwan, and the US will be fucked. Jokes on them though, because TSMC has remote self destructive capabilities for their operations.

You’re thinking of licensing as a person putting something online WITH a license.

The terminology in this case is whether or not it was LICENSED by the commercial entity using and selling it’s derivative. That is the default. The burden is on the commercial entity to prove they were the original creator of said content. It is by default plagiarism otherwise, and this is also the default.

Here’s an example: I write a story and post it online, and it is specific to a toothbrush and toilet scrubber falling in love, and then having dish scrubber pads as children. I say the two main characters are called Dennis and Fran, and their children are called Denise and Francesca. Then somebody goes to prompt OpenAI for a similar and it kicks out the exact same story with the same names, I would win that case based on it clearly being beyond a doubt plagiarism.

Unless you as OpenAI can prove these are all completely random-which they aren’t because it’s trained on my data-then I would be deemed the original creator of that story, and any sales of that data I would be entitled to.

Proving that is a different thing, but that’s what the laws say should happen. If they didn’t contact me to license that story, it’s still plagiarism. Same with music, movies…etc.

EULA and TOS agreements stop Reddit and similar sites from being sued. They changed them before they were selling the data and barely gave notice about it (see the exodus from reddit pt2), but if you keep using the service, you agree to both, and they can get away with it because they own the platform.

Anyone who has their content on a platform of the like that got the rug pulled out from under them with silent amendments being made to allow that is unfortunately fucked.

Any other platforms that didn’t explicitly state this was happening is not in scope to just allow these training tools to grab and train. What we know is that OpenAI at the very least was training on public sites that didn’t explicitly allow this. Personal blogs, Wikipedia…etc.

Two things:

1. Getty is not expressly licensed as “free to use”, and by default is not licensed for commercial anything. That’s how they are a business that is still alive.

2. You’re talking about Generative AI junk and not LLMs which this discussion and the original post is about. They are not the same thing.

Did you not read my original comment before responding?

Unlicensed from the POV of the trainer, meaning they didn’t contact or license content from someone who didn’t approve. If it’s posted under Creative Commons, that’s fine. If it’s otherwise posted that it’s not open in any other way and not for corporate use, then they need to contact the owner and license it.

Best correction ever. Fixed. ♥️

Not really. The same way you can’t sell live and public performance music for profit and not get sued. Case law right there, and the fact it’s performance vs publicly published doesn’t matter. How the owner and originator classifies or licenses it is the defining classification. It’s going to be years before anyone sees this get a ruling in court though.

But you still have to have EVIDENCE. Not derivative evidence. The output of a model could be argued to be hearsay because it’s not direct evidence of originating content, it’s derivative.

You’d have to have somebody backtrack generations of model data to even find snippets of something that defines copyright material, or a human actually saying “Yes, we definitely trained on unlicensed data”.

Do you have DNS A records pointing to the right place?

`dig whateveryourdomain.tld’ and find out.

It won’t really do anything though. The model itself is whatever. The training tools, data and resulting generations of weights are where the meat is. Unless you can prove they are using unlicensed data from those three pieces, open sourcing it is kind of moot.

What we need is legislation to stop it from happening in perpetuity. Maybe just ONE civil case win to make them think twice about training on unlicensed data, but they’ll drag that out for years until people go broke fighting, or stop giving a shit.

They pulled a very public and out in the open data heist and got away with it. Stopping it from continuously happening is the only way to win here.

“What are some foods I can eat?”

This question is insanely unspecific and has not context to what you’re even working on.

That’ll do it if all you’re checking for is valid working operation after a restore.

Make some notes that you tested it and what you had to do to get it working in the backup job as well. Could save you A LOT of panic in the future.

Test a restore and see. Only way to know for sure.

You can install OpenWRT on tons of hardware, or any generic PC. I’d suggest that over *sense distros any day because it’s just more user friendly.

This is bonkers

This is a beginner. I wouldn’t try to overcomplicate it.

Neato