March 10 (Reuters) - Nvidia (NVDA.O), whose chips power artificial intelligence, has been sued by three authors who said it used their copyrighted books without permission to train its Nemo AI platform.
Brian Keene, Abdi Nazemian and Stewart O'Nan said their works were part of a dataset of about 196,640 books that helped train NeMo to simulate ordinary written language, before being taken down in October "due to reported copyright infringement."
They are seeking unspecified damages for people in the United States whose copyrighted works helped train NeMo's so-called large language models in the last three years.
This person is being honest about how he feels about a hypothetical situation. I appreciate the humility of sharing a thought people might look down on and would be trivial to lie about. Also based on this article I would be surprised if he is not the type to show such kindness - if anything this reflection shows that such openness is not to be taken lightly, that it is special and should be appreciated as such. How wonderful then that is is so ubiquitous.
That is unfair. The largest co2 producers are also large in size. I think 1km resolution is more than sufficient to identify the source of the majority of emissions - e.g. factories, power plants, buildings, etc. Even if the resolution is not fine-grained enough for definitive identification it reduces the scope to manageable size for more detailed investigations.
"Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective", 2021 - Veritasium's apologia for clicbait titles and and thumbnails, and statement of principles.
Veritasiuk has at least stuck making soldi educational videos, as Mark Rober has let slip away his past effort to educate in addition to demonstrate his cool toys.
It doesn't even make sense. I think you meant to say "efficiently" perhaps but even arguing that is an uphill battle - at most you could say that is true for some types of projects.
I agree with your overall position but I disagree on the first point.
Wealth is ownership, ownership is control of value. Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.
I agree with that. I only mean that it’s not as simple as “if we gave everyone Elon’s money then we could all afford homes.” But you’re right, the higher concentration of wealth means there’s less investment into producing more resources that people need, so indirectly it does mean there are less homes to go around.
I do agree with what (I think) GP might have been trying to say though. Conspicuous spending itself is not a problem. Way rather have the ultra wealthy buying yachts that deciding to be a wealth-proportional amount of everyday commodities.
> Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.
You are already doing that with your votes, the American government is already investing massive amounts into education and food security. Private investments would never do this, even poor people wouldn't invest in poor ROI endeavors, poor people invest in the same things as rich people they just invest less, so the wealth of the rich doesn't matter.
It's not about what non-0.001% people invest in, but what they spend on. More evenly distributed wealth would mean more money for people to spend on education, food security, and housing, which in turn would spur increased production of those goods. Below a certain wealth threshold, people aren't putting every additional dollar into "investments" in the financial sense of the word. There's more ROI by sending your kids to college or moving to a better neighborhood.
The American government gets that money from taxes. If wealthy people are using that wealth to avoid taxes and put the burden on to the worker then the worker is being hurt twice - first by the lost power in their vote, and second by paying an unfair share of public infrastructure costs.
There are a couple of nuanced issues with what you are saying.
1. In our current political system, wealth translates into political power, which can (and is) used to change laws to secure more wealth - just look at the portfolio performance of members of US Congress. Democracy is about putting political power in the vote.
2. Many if not most of our important problems are beyond the ability of one person (or a small group) to tackle - climate change, food security, etc. Having wealth more distributed means that more economic participants are involved in deploying it, and thus greater predictive power per dollar spent.
reply