Damn, what a misleading price.

For you not to waste your precious time - "orb" is just a virtual machine. And the thing requires a phone number, which it tells you at the END of the registration. I have new marketing jingle for that company: "market your AI slop with non-AI slop".

I enjoyed the demo vids and seeing the way these VMs are implemented.

>requires a phone number…at the END of the registration

I do not appreciate that at all. Phone number, understandable, but it better be all the way up front.

I am on the Amp team. I just turned off SMS verification. Not needed anymore. Was required for ~5% of signups for anti-abuse, but I think we're good without it now.

:D wow nice thanks

How expensive would AI access be if every user paid their fair share instead of shoving it on the people doing the actual work?

You mean shoving it onto the investors?

No they mean the people doing the actual work, I think.

The people doing the work aren't paying for AI, they're getting paid by AI.

The people who are having the costs of users not paying "their fair share" (this phrase has officially jumped the shark) are the investors who are subsidizing these companies.

I'm getting paid for AI to scrape my stuff? That's news to me. How do I claim it?

Do you get paid when people "scrape your stuff"?

See also: the price for uber rides.

Microsoft implemented a disruptive technology that caused...well... disruption.

That cases should end with prison sentences, not financial settlements.

You think the rich will let that happen?

Remember, corporations may scrap you but you cannot scrap them.

About the damn time. Couldn't they vibe code the Linux version using the same very tool from the day one?

In case of lmgtfy the receiver was usually the lazy person. The question was usually so simple that simple that asking it for nth time on public forum was the waste of everyone's time. In case of pasting LLM response verbatim the responder is usually the one wasting everyone's time.

LLMs are ascendant partially because they do not "RTFM", "read the FAQ", or "question closed as duplicate" at you regardless of how many times they've heard a question before.

Of course the trained models, being derived from GPL code, become derivative work, and by extension - also GPL? Right?

Maybe. The courts haven't exactly ruled yet. And it is the risk here that the GNU project wants to avoid.

Will things probably be OK? Sure. Probably. But GNU is particularly risk averse when it comes to licensing.

No, you can't copyright an idea, only an expression of an idea, and LLMs operate at the level of ideas. They don't literally stitch together code from training.

Well, not exactly. A LLM is still a computer, doesn't have an intelligence (beside being called AI). That means that their output is a mere computation of their input data, and their input data it's the stuff that was used for the training.

If you imagine it as a "box" you feed into it material and a prompt and it spits out the same material rearranged to do what you did ask for. It does nothing more than a permutation of their input data, as does any computer program, of course in extremely complex and obscure way, but if you reason it abstractly it's the same things Turing theorized almost a century years ago, input -> BOX -> output.

So *of course* the output *is* a derived work of the input, and thus a GPL code should not really used as a training set.

I'm pretty familiar with the technical details of how an LLM works. They absolutely operate more on a level of abstract concepts than acting like some kind of text-Frankenstein as you're suggesting (as if the model is Frankenstein and its output is his monster).

Here's a very basic example: if you have access to a typical language model's weights, you can subtract the embedding for "man" from the embedding for "king", add the embedding for "woman", and land somewhere very close to the embedding for "queen".

Why is "intelligence", whatever that means, a prerequisite for a machine to process ideas in the abstract?

LLMs very much operate on the level of text. That text can represent ideas, but it can also directly be a copyrighted work.

I am however very interested in the novel interpretation of copyright that says that you can do whatever as long as your compression is lossy.