open source people, are you ok?

No.

Every nazi got the black indigenous latinx disabled nonbinary trans lesbian sock puppet roleplay account that astroturfs in favor of conservative and fascist policies.

That sentence is somewhere between exactly 420.69 and 1,337.00 millialtmans of cringe.

I appreciate the phrasing "NFTs that cost millions" instead of "NFTs worth millions".

Bitcoin is also unserious and unstable to a degree that woukd be comical if it weren't tragic.

"Wow, this Penny Arcade comic featuring toxic yaoi of submissive Sam Altman is lowkey kinda hot" is a sentence neither I nor any LLM, Markov chain or monkey on a typewriter could have predicted but now exists.

How is the richest man in the world, the future head of a government department with the ear of the president-elect of the United States, such a cringe loser that the most redeeming thing his ex can say about him to protect her pride is that he's kinda good at a couple of videogames?

She's damning him by faint praise so hard she's basically catching strays from her own attempt at defending herself.

"Admit" is a strong word, I'd go for "desperately attempt to deny".

I wonder if the OpenAI habit of naming their models after the previous ones' embarrassing failures is meant as an SEO trick. Google "chatgpt strawberry" and the top result is about o1. It may mention the origin of the codename, but ultimately you're still streered to marketing material.

Either way, I'm looking forward to their upcoming AI models Malpractice, Forgery, KiddieSmut, ClassAction, SecuritiesFraud and Lemonparty.

The stretching is just so blatant. People who train neural networks do not write a bunch of tokens and weights. They take a corpus of training data and run a training program to generate the weights. That's why it is the training program and the corpus that should be considered the source form of the program. If either of these can't be made available in a way that allows redistribution of verbatim and modified versions, it can't be open source. Even if I have a powerful server farm and a list of data sources for Llama 3, I can't replicate the model myself without committing copyright infringement (neither could Facebook for that matter, and that's not an entirely separate issue).

There are large collections of freely licensed and public domain media that could theoretically be used to train a model, but that model surely wouldn't be as big as the proprietary ones. In some sense truly open source AI does exist and has for a long time, but that's not the exciting thing OSI is lusting after, is it?

TSMC suit: "And is the seven trillion dollars in the room with us right now?"

Sure, but this isn't about making copyright stricter, but just making it explicit that the existing law applies to AI tech.

I'm very critical of copyright law, but letting specifically big tech pretend like they're not distributing derivative work because it's derived from billions of works on the internet is not the gateway to copyright abolition I'd hope to see.