This is just a legal fact. It has nothing to do with how an LLM operates internally, or whether an LLM is at all similar to a human mind in terms of internal mechanics.

> "The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?"

Don't be fatuous.

> "Because of the meme magic"

No, because of the way the law works.

"A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter."

Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

No one said they were. You may want to revisit my original observation.

The open question is how to handle machines that mimic the process.

This is false. The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition.

You could argue that the operation differs in important ways - of course. But the similarity of output is literally the entire point.

"2) even if they were somehow proven to be the same"

I didn't suggest they need to be the same, proven or otherwise. I think you're not understanding. The point is that the function is similar.

How it works doesn't necessarily matter.

"3) cognition is not a "special exception to copyright" because it is entirely unrelated. "

False as a matter of law.

"4) we do not "judge every thought individually as to it's originality" because other peoples' thoughts are entirely opaque."

Also false as a matter of law. When you publish your thoughts - your works, writing, whatever they are judged as to their originality if the question of who owns the copyright is raised.

"Nobody is judging your thoughts, and if you think they are you need to take your medications."

There's no need to be snarky and disingenuous.

From the comment guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The new play is judged as to its originality.

People who have seen a play (everybody) are allowed to write new plays which aren't beholden to the copyright of the first play they've ever watched.

This really isn't clear because cognition is treated as a special exception to copyright. Every thought we have is derivative of everything we've seen before to some degree; reading a book makes our brains a derivative work. But we recognize that cognition is special.

With machines we tend to apply a strict test: Did copyright go in? If so, the output is almost certainly derivative.

With human brains, with cognition, it isn't enough to prove that a person has consumed a copywitten work prior to having a thought -- instead we judge every thought individually as to its originality.

If we are in a position to apply similar cognitive rules to an LLM then the weights won't be derivative works and we will judge each output as to its originality rather than simply assume.

65 is retirement. Everyone's income drops around this time.

It's because spousal support terminates at 65. At that point both parties are presumed retired and can't be compelled to work.

> Mr Vandenbroucke said it was not possible to draw conclusions

It's very possible. The spousal/child support system is grossly unfair. I have seen support awards at 300% of the family's income.

A more accurate headline might read: People with anxiety disorders who take cannabis may unnecessarily visit the ER.

In 1992 you could get a 486dx 33MHz with 4MB for like $800 (a two year old chip) with similar peripherals. Way more than double the power for a marginal increase in cost.

The Pentium arrived a year later in 1993 and by 1994 we had the 486dx4/100MHz and Pentium/586 at similar clock speeds. This is around when doom arrived and Amiga was long since toast.

In the late 1980s I wanted an Amiga so badly. But by the early 90s I had a 486 with VGA and a sb16 and it was all over. The Amiga had a mere fraction of the PC's power by then.

Wirecutter doesn't publish their methodology, but every "tester" who has focuses on questionable metrics -- such as testing stain types that don't require agitation to remove.

In my experience most people who are happy with them don't have very dirty clothing to begin with.

Regarding normal water usage: It is not true that washers "gain nothing" by using more water. More water protects clothing under agitation and aids in removing dirt. From the SQ manual:

"Wash delicate items usually washed by hand on this cycle. A full tub of water is recommended (even for small loads) to allow the delicate items to move freely through the water. More water helps reduce fabric wear, wrinkling, and provides for a clean wash."

https://speedqueen.com/au/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/0...

This is the precise issue:

1) Regulators required low-water modes

2) Low water modes clean less effectively and are rougher on clothes

3) Front loaders are designed to work with low water loads, but still don't clean well

3) All modern washers are now terrible, except models that intentionally skirt regulations - such as SQ

High-water agitation is the best by far. The only drawback is increased water use - which is insignificant. The entire issue is a result of bad washer regulations.

But there's a HUGE difference in terms of ability to clean. If I'm out doing yardwork and I have a pair of jeans with deep mud stains on the knees the old style top loader agitators can clean them just fine. The front loaders cannot no matter how many times I run them through. I end up having to scrub the jeans between my knuckles in the laundry sink - moderate agitation breaks up the mud and it rinses out easily.

I suspect a lot of this "agitators are rough" nonsense comes from modern washers that don't use a sufficient amount of water. But the SQ has a setting to use the normal amount of water so it's a non-issue. Most analysis I've seen (eg: from Consumer Reports) refuses to consider top loaders with normal water usage settings -- the data is basically invalid. A lot of Consumer Reports analysis has this type of problem where the entire study is built on a false premise.

Front loaders might be fine if your clothes never get dirty and only need occasional light rinsing. They're really terrible for actually cleaning dirt.

We went through an amazing period of very cheap computers from 2000-2020. We just didn't need specialty or high end equipment for a while.

Now we do again.