this will become true in just a couple of years from now, assuming you represent age as a base-six number. (4*6+5 == 2027-1998)

"Given they were trained on our data, it makes sense that it should be public commons – that way we all benefit from the processing of our data"

I wonder how many people besides the author of this article are upset solely about the profit-from-copyright-infringement aspect of automated plagiarism and bullshit generation, and thus would be satisfied by the models being made more widely available.

The inherent plagiarism aspect of LLMs seems far more offensive to me than the copyright infringement, but both of those problems pale in comparison to the effects on humanity of masses of people relying on bullshit generators with outputs that are convincingly-plausible-yet-totally-wrong (and/or subtly wrong) far more often than anyone notices.

I liked the author's earlier very-unlikely-to-be-met-demand activism last year better:

I just sent @OpenAI a cease and desist demanding they delete their GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 models in their entirety and remove all of my personal data from their training data sets before re-training in order to prevent #ChatGPT telling people I am dead.

...which at least yielded the amusingly misleading headline OpenAI ordered to delete ChatGPT over false death claims (it's technically true - a court didn't order it, but a guy who goes by the name "That One Privacy Guy" while blogging on linkedin did).

many items listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions are often presented as advice

source.

In case anyone suspects, merely because the author is a blaster by trade, they might be too quick to suggest explosives as the solution to a problem, fyi they also co-authored Boulder buster : breaking rocks without explosives. (The rest of their work here is about using explosives, though.)

Hold it down

That "underdog" you're talking about is owned by the 11th largest private equity firm in the world, and they really don't contribute much to the free software project Matt runs which their entire business is built on.

Matt is certainly screwing up with his handling of the dispute, and it's sad to see because i think his commitment to free software ideals has generally been a benefit to society over the last two decades.

From where I'm sitting (i've spent at least a couple hours reading about the dispute over the last few months) he's actually not wrong about the trademark thing. And he's also not wrong about pineapple on pizza 😂 ... but putting either on the login page is not a good look. 😢

Given that they are demographically, geographically, and economically dissimilar, I can only assume this is referring to the fact that both cities had electric street car services which operated from the 1880s until around 1950.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_Cincinnati

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Electric_Railway

I looked at that, and thought "ha, that is a funny and obviously fake screenshot of a headline, created to ridicule photomatt for being petty in his fight with his company's biggest competitor".

Then, after closing this tab I did a double take and thought: maybe it's actually real?

And, it turns out, yeah, he really actually did that (after a court injunction required them to remove the checkbox which required users to pledge that they were "not affiliated with WP Engine in any way, financially or otherwise"):

😂

he's not wrong, though

they out here using "out here" two sentences in a row, smh my head