@nprofile1q... looks like they didn't fully embrace memory management 🥁

I wish c# had a way to partially compile even the disabled parts, I've made similar mistakes a bunch of times while developing a unity multiplatform library - it became difficult to keep track of all the variations (4 platforms x 3 RPs x several unity version ranges)

@nprofile1q...

> infrasound harm are effectively pseudoscience

in what sense? there's plenty of research to suggest it annoys people at the very least, for example:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2026.1729876/full

and idk about you but I wouldn't want to live in some location that effectively guarantees that I'd be more annoyed than elsewhere 100% of the time

@nprofile1q... this is cool

do you know what made them change their mind?

@nprofile1q... What's untrue?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-2-2/ALDE_00013062/

it says:

> "encourage, by *proper premiums* and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries";

@nprofile1q... I don't think anyone's arguing in court that a genAI model training script is infringement by itself?

The issue is with the data set the companies collected and fed into the script.

If they had the rights to every single image they used, there would be no lawsuit.

Sorry if I was initially unclear, that was what I was referring to, not the general act of "training".

@nprofile1q... In that case you can argue that the particular work was not substantially used in the end result, if all you needed was a pile of pixels (or a palette) without their positional association to each other.

To me, cases like this sit far outside the "substantially used" circle.

AI "models" on the other hand, explicitly consider the positional associations of the pixels of the original images at various scales, not just their color.

@nprofile1q... Hypothetically, if someone were to extract all the brush strokes from a file, wrote them into a book, retyped that book back into a file and re-rendered them to claim that it's original work, to me that's still a clear-cut infringement, not even de minimis (which could apply if only e.g. less than 0.1% of the brush strokes were used).

At the end of the day, copyright is an economical tool to ensure the author is fairly rewarded for their work, not an obfuscation challenge.

@nprofile1q... Perfect memorization is also irrelevant - lossy compression is also a thing, doesn't stop copyright from applying (otherwise reencoding videos would remove their copyright).

Ultimately though what matters for infringement is whether the original work was substantially used to produce the new work (regardless of the exact process) - and clearly that's the case.

Not even the AI companies dispute infringement, they argue that it's "fair use" instead.

@nprofile1q... That doesn't make sense. That's what most computer data effectively is - instructions to reconstruct data in a more accessible format. IDK if you're familiar with art tools but some literally encode the brush strokes (like Substance Painter or Clip Studio Paint vector layers) needed to reconstruct the picture.

@nprofile1q...

> [..] all seek to establish that training an AI model is a copyright infringement. This is wrong [..]

This is such a strange hill to die on. Of course "training" infringes - it's compression.

Framing it as "mathematical analysis" or collecting "facts" is disingenuous.

Fourier transform could be easily described the exact same way, except it's fully reversible.

"Facts" wrt copyright are not meant to be the building blocks needed to reconstruct a work to some degree.

@nprofile1q... https://streamable.com/wb0ifq (this link will expire in 2 days)

browser: Opera One (version: 120.0.5543.128), Chromium version: 135.0.7049.115