> Something went very wrong in negotiations here. That's all I can say. Who allowed this deal to be penned in its exact fashion?
I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. It's more likely that nobody "allowed" the situation to happen, and the publishers just had much stronger bargaining power. So libraries either pay to participate and adjust their budget accordingly, or don't have e-books to lend out.
Or, put more provocatively in a forum run by a startup incubator: capitalism allowed this to happen.
My local library does appear to have a large enough budget to cater for this new demand but I can understand if many other city libraries don't.
IAAL but likely not in your jurisdiction, and I agree with this, because the biggest "legal" concern I would have as the linked OP is the company coming back and blaming me for some software I wrote that was out of my job scope entirely.
I would add that the goal isn't just to convince the company to delete the software, but rather to acknowledge and accept that there is no support, no warranty, and if things go wrong it's on their hands.
Added Point I: The value of product going in and out of even a modest-sized warehouse in a week can easily be 1000X the net worth of any of the hourly employees there. So if things went wrong - trying to recover their losses by suing Manuel McLong-Gone would be hopeless. And that might also alert their insurance carrier to an excuse for denying coverage.
Added Point II: Being responsible for all that money, no Warehouse Manager worth a pallet would want some undocumented & unsupported software, cobbled together by some former hourly employee, to be left running in his warehouse. Even as you depart, you are being loyal and industry-savvy, and making sure Mr. Manager knows about that potential problem. And how to prevent it.
> I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.
The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.
The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.
If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.
Maybe that is the point of the article, however that is not the finding of the experiment the article is based on.
If the experiment was, "When should a park in your neighborhood apply the rule 'no vehicles in the park'?" I believe the outcome would have been very different with near universal agreement on the most important questions.
"pretend you are an enforcement official, and your only official guidance is this sign, the purpose of this rule is to keep the park safe, but you might get reprimanded if you kick someone out of the park and you can't convince your boss that they were breaking this rule"
This is all absolutely implicit context for many real world rules enforcers. I would bet money that if you reran this experiment with that prompt you would get over 60% of people in 100% agreement.
I exercise to maintain healthspan and keep fit, but I am by no means "fit" by the standards of people who are fit. I've seen what strong looks like (I'm not very big, at the oly gym I used to frequent I saw someone my height and weight bench > 3 plates at a meet), I've seen what performance endurance in a run, cycle, and swim looks like, and I've also seen what the vast majority of people at my office are like.
The author has some great reasons to grow and keep big muscles, but I have some thoughts to add for that "majority of people at the office" crowd.
Thought #1: there is one item that the author mentions that I think is absolutely critical yet buried all the way at the bottom.
> If you’re over 30 (or even in your 20s and able to afford it), hire a personal trainer to start. They can check your form and avoid any kind of injuries. With weights, it is really easy to get a bad form, no matter how many youtube videos you watch. I went to see a Physiotherapist 4 years after I started squats, and this is the best thing I’ve ever done. She retaught me everything I think I knew about squatting.
I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to focus on form so you avoid injuries. When you're older, hurting yourself will knock you off the exercise horse for years. Also, note that if you're in your 30s and have been mostly sedentary your adult life, the squat and deadlift may not even be movements that you have the range of motion to do.
Don't fall into the trap of pushing yourself because the program said so or the internet said so or because you feel inadequate next to the huge gains that people are showing off on the internet. There is absolutely no shame in taking things slower. Remember your goal is not to look good naked on the beach next summer, it is to maintain healthspan into your 70s.
Thought #2: cardio is important, the author's warning about "too much cardio because your joints will give out and you will lose muscle" is really odd and feels like I'm browsing /r/fitness in 2010. If you're very concerned about your joints, do something lower impact, like swim or cycle or row or the elliptical.
But do take your rest days.
Thought #3: stronglifts 5x5 is great if you're in your 20s or your early 30s. If you're older than that, well, you can still do it but please be careful. See thought #1 above.
The lifting crowd hates cardio people. Because they are skinny wimpy girly men in their mainstream values... Yes it is that dumb, it is SNL skit.
It's actually a really good filter. Keep those people at arms length. The ones that don't have that attitude are the ones with positive balance aren't headed for the steroid slope.
Lifting is something that you should do with yoga or Pilates, swimming, some running and biking all in the mix. Because you get benefits from all of them.
The best starting workout for people imo is you lift 3 exercises, one set each to about 10-15 reps, then do 5 minutes of cardio between them. Do that cycle 4 times.
You'll get 20 minutes of cardio and 12 different exercises. Make sure 2-3 of the motions are lower body.
Most people I've talked to want farm animals to be treated "well", and whatever that word means in their heads, we all agree that it's some standard higher than industrial scale factory farming.
The problem is that meat and dairy from humanely treated free-range animals is generally more expensive, and most people aren't willing to pay extra or cut down on their meat consumption.
I didn't get that from the poster you're replying to. I agree with you that people will create because people are people and want to create.
But people also have to eat, need shelter, want kids, have to take care of health issues, and so on. For that they need money. If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.
> If they can't get money from their creations they'll spend less time creating and more time engaging in activity that generates returns.
On the other hand, artists who adapt AI into their workflows will have vastly improved productivity, so the amount of time they need to create new works can also be much smaller for the same amount of output.
There will still be some artists who can avoid using AI and make a living, but like all skilled industries that have already been disrupted by automation, the market for that kind of work will become smaller and more exclusive, and that’s probably OK. Live musicians were the only way to get music on the radio, or in the cinema, or at a party, until audio recordings decimated the industry[0]. You can still buy hand-made furniture, or clothing, or cars, but most people today get them from a factory.
I do think there are serious issues with large players attempting to corner the market and extract all the wealth for themselves, but this is an old problem[1], and I think on balance these lawsuits perpetuate, rather than attempt to solve, the root problem: a missing social safety net and no guarantee that people will not have to scramble to survive every time a disruptive technology emerges.
This part of the discussion is mainly about economics, not expression.
The parent argument was that AI will force artists to spend more time engaging in non-artistic pursuits because the amount of money the market will pay for artwork will go down. The counterpoint is that the amount of time the artist needs to spend on creating artwork is also reduced. In other words, if the market value for creating one artwork goes down by 50%, but the amount of time it takes also goes down by 50%, then there is no change except that the artist gets to double the amount of work they produce for the same amount of time.
Regarding the natural human desire to create art, unless you’re famous, making money as a creative involves mostly shitwork. Most commercial projects are just not very fun or interesting. Tools like generative AI can help to automate away a lot of the shitwork, so when the really interesting projects come along, they can be given more energy. This, to me, also seems like a win.
I was deeply sceptical of LK-99 and simply chose not to comment on it in public on the internet because: (1) confirmation or contradiction will come soon enough, and (2) being sceptical, however measured, usually attracts accusations of being a negative, cynical naysayer, and I don't need that in my life.
There’s a way to be skeptical without being “negative” but I definitely get it. People will sometimes latch on to things to the point that their identity is threatened by the possibility that they are wrong. I try to ignore this and just have fun speculating. Science as a spectator sport is a fun idea if we can avoid the drunken hooliganism.
> In fact, I don't think it's reasonable that they should even have access to view what you're uploading and sharing in private meetings.
There may be a setting you can set in the application to disable this. I don't know, I don't use Zoom.
But in any case, I think you hit the nail on the head. Just from a plain English perspective:
10.1 says that content you (as host or participant) upload to Zoom, may be used by Zoom to provide derivative information. An example listed is transcripts. Both the information you upload, and the information Zoom provides, is "Customer Content". Customer Content is your responsibility.
10.3 and 10.4 covers a wide variety of purposes for which Zoom can use the Customer Content.
10.5 says that Zoom will reasonably protect Customer Content from unauthorized disclosure, etc., but that it has no other obligations with respect to Customer Content. In particular, it can share the Customer Content with their "consultants,contractors, service providers, subprocessors, and other Zoom-authorized third parties accessing, using, collecting, maintaining, processing, storing, and transmitting Customer Content on Zoom’s or your (or your End Users’) behalf in connection with the Services or Software".
17.1, the confidentiality clause, says that Customer Content is not confidential information. That suggest the obligations of confidentiality, such as disclosing to third parties only with a confidentiality agreement in place, do not apply.
So if I'm reading this right, Zoom can disclose your meeting transcripts [edit: I meant audio of your meeting] to a third party, without an obligation of confidence between Zoom and that third party, so long as it is for the purposes of providing you the transcript feature.
Which is really strange, to say the least. At minimum I would expect Zoom to treat Customer Content as confidential.
Wish a lawyer could read this and give us (free) insight.
Agreed. The concepts were floating around before, but nothing presented the idea of an LLM quite as coherently and presciently like Rorschach did. (I hasten to add that this is in my own limited experience - I am an SFF fan but I have not read every book in existence.)
As a layman with respect to LLMs, I feel like Blindsight and its perspective of the chinese room puzzle is required reading. I wonder if people working in AI feel the same and I'd be really curious to know how they feel about the book.
He's a longtime Starcraft fan for example, and offered an ex Starcraft pro a job on the strength of that alone.
There is a reddit thread where he participated in that had some interesting perspectives that I think may be of interest to this forum: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/dl3o2p/billionai...