What “agenda” are you posting? You’re just nay-saying.

Go eat hay elsewhere with that attitude.

Notice how I said “commercially profit” too. Read all the words next time.

Also LLMs do not “learn” anything, you idiot. That’s the entire point. They mathematically blender things. They DO NOT learn and create.

Yea OK they’re fucked. I really really doubt they’ll be able to claim the data is solely comprised of the open works saved within that database. The only way they’d be able to get away with it is if they’ve meticulously harvested the data such that they only ever retrieved the open works or public domain works.

Anything not in that list or otherwise made available solely via their nonprofit efforts is going to be ammo in the lawsuit. Ammo that will hit its target.

I think that would depend on how intentional the open port was.

If it’s something there and advertised, even if mentioned in one place in some archaic document, they’d probably be fine just for accessing it.

Though that would only absolve them of acquisition issues. If they’re using someone else’s work for profit, there is almost certainly enough room for the lawsuit.

Only a select few licenses even allow for open and unrestricted commercial use. Especially if the data itself is the licensed thing, since valuable data is far easier to convert than something like source code.

I mean… it’ll all come down to how they accessed the data. If they had a public portal and no EULA, they can push rocks. If the data wasn’t public or the ‘theives’ had to use non-standard channels, or otherwise violated an EULA, they’re likely screwed. Especially if they had to go through abnormal channels.

I know their data can be accessed publicly, but I’m pretty sure it’s under license. You cannot just use any old thing found in public… That’s the biggest reasons the AI models are technically theft: they weren’t licensed to commercially profit off of 99.99% of the things their LLMs are trained on, but the law and politicians are WAY behind the times. Commercial data they’d normally have to pay for is suddenly magically OK when laundered through an LLM…

Keep in mind data recovery vs drive size. Getting past ~16TB drives, it starts to become a question of whether the rest would be able to survive a restore of a failed drive if any are going to have remotely similar endurance. Obviously, the answer is going to be “yes” most of the time, but at a certain point, there are deminishing returns on the cost of the drives to where even a one to one price increase in the HDD per size might not be worth it all the same.

Kinda’ a moot point if you’re not going to raid them in any way for reliability, but worth a thought.

I’ve described this terribly, but Level1tech on YT talks about it sometimes in reviews.

We’re obviously talking about US police.

bahaha truly pathetic

Calling it a “buzzword” is dismissive of it. Or are you also too stupid to understand subtext?

I don’t think they’re entirely different. Enshittification is just a specific type. Yes, of course it has distinguishing qualities or we’d be having a totally different convo.

IMO, it’s more important to realize enshittification is not a new development! It’s just way, WAY more obvious now that the ruling class has allowed effective monopolies to rise again. When only one or two companies control an entire market, their shitty tactics become way, way more obvious and painful for consumers.

If you do not believe in FAFO as a fundamental truth (even if it is said often) then you might just be dumb.

Don’t let annoyed obstinance turn you in to a dummy denying basic facts of reality.

There is still value in calling out the exploitation. It might not be as shitty as leveraging different customer pools, but it absolutely is the same exact business mindset that creates enshittification.

I don’t think it’s wrong to at least associate the two things even if “enshittification” remains more about gearing systems to exploit customers vs basic direct exploitation of customers.