You can read some of the books. Natural limitations prevent you from reading any substantial number. And the scale makes all the difference in any conversation.

All laws were written accounting for the reality of the time. Humans have a limited storage and processing capacity so laws relied on that assumption. Now that we have systems with far more extensive capabilities in some regards, shouldn't the law follow?

When people's right to "bear arms" was enshrined in the US constitution it accounted for what "arms" were at the time. Since then weapons evolved and today you are not allowed to bear automatic rifles or machine guns despite them being just weapons that can fire more and faster.

Every time there's a discussion on AI one side relies way too much on the "but humas also" argument and are way too superficial with everything else.

Not “all human knowledge” is digitised and published on the internet.

That's not going to happen. What is going to happen, is that humans are going to become more "AI agent"-like.

Base rate is soon never comes.

And soon flying cars, but now Facebook glasses.

How many of them per hour?

> And you can later tell other humans about what you have learned.

For how long you can retain this information without corruption and without evicting old information? How fast you can tell it, in how many speech streams? To how many people?

This "but we modeled them after human brains, they are just like humans" argument is tiring. AI is as much human as an Airbus A380 is a bird.

Facebook torrented a book list .

What does this have to do with LLM training? Does OpenAI have a data center in every library, and only process data from that library in that data center?

You're not allowed to maintain a personal copy of a book you borrowed from a library, even though you pay a library fee. Neither should OpenAI, especially since they didn't even pay that small fee.

What OpenAI and the others are doing, by contrast, is the equivalent of stealing every book in a book store, making a digital copy, retaining that copy, and returning the original book. This is completely and obviously illegal, and has been tested in court many times - for example in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial .

Without text written by humans to construct its knowledgebase, an LLM would not be able to conjure up any sort of response or "feeling", as it isn't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

MAGA has been pushing hard on boundaries, and playing fast and loose with gray areas, but still seem to be obeying actual final court rulings.

The biggest crisis on the horizon is going to be if the USMS / FBI / DOJ refuse to execute court-ordered redress.

The fix for that is to put at least the USMS directly under the courts.

The longer-term more worrisome trend is the drumbeat in conservative media against "activist judges", which is transparently a ploy to turn their constituency against the judicial branch, in preparation for ignoring judicial outcomes...

Ironically, the current ideologically tilt of the Supreme Court may cut against that. Harder to argue that a 6-3 conservative court is being unfair to their guy.

A 5-4 or 4-5 court would have been a lot easier to tar and feather in public opinion.