I was misremembering. Google won the precedent, when they were suing over Google Books. IA had only 1 big lawsuit and were forced to settle. The non-destructive scanning is dicey.

Copyright. They mustn't make a copy. There is legal precedent that confirms it's okay to transform the copy you bought into digital format. The Internet Archive relies a lot on that. I think they actually litigated it in the first place. So that's why the copyright heads are going so absolutely apeshit. If no one's charging you rent for using some data, then it's "unethical".

Mehr Details von Huggingface: https://huggingface.co/blog/agent-intrusion-technical-timeline

Boys need good, male role models.

https://jfrog.com/blog/jfrog-and-openai-collaboration-on-zero-day-security-findings/

https://huggingface.co/blog/agent-intrusion-technical-timeline

Alles gut! Wenn möglich, kopier bei sowas bitte den Link dazu. Dann versteh ich wie's gemeint ist.

Hier haben wir den AI Act. Also alles gut.

Ok, aber wenn du mit dem anderen Bericht nicht gut findest (zu Recht), warum suchst du dann nicht einen Besseren?

Das Zitat hier so zusammenhanglos zu Posten ist nur verwirrend. Ich habe den Link nur gelesen, weil ich wissen wollte wie blöde das eigentlich berichtet wird. Oft würde ich mir nicht mehr die Mühe machen, wenn ich so ein Zitat im Thread sehe und auf andere Quellen ausweichen.

Das Zitat kommt in dem Link nicht vor.

I tried to come up with a mildly funny title but... gestures helplessly at title

Sorry.

Yes, but that only puts an upper limit on the price that anyone would be willing to pay.

It's like this: Both companies estimate how much money they expect to make from using those servers for their own purposes. In Mistral's case, that might be a negative amount. Regardless, Microsoft obviously can put the capacity to better use. So they can offer to rent it from Mistral for more than Mistral believes it can make on its own. Basically, MS passes on some of their profits to Mistral.