petilon

Let me explain it this way: If it is legal for a human to learn from a book, then disseminate the knowledge, then it is legal for a machine to do so. You may think this is not right because a machine does it at a much larger scale, but if so laws need to be updated. As it stands now there is no law that says if a human does X it is not a copyright violation but if a machine does the same X it is copyright violation.

If it is legal for a human to do something then it is legal for a machine to do it too. Are there any counter examples to that?

Did they borrow the book? If I learn from a borrowed book is that copyright infringement?

I disagree that LLM models are the product of enormous quantities of copyright infringement.

The recent announcement that AI-assisted research produced a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture--a long-standing open problem in algebraic geometry--shows the original value AI can create. The result was not copied from a textbook; it emerged from AI learning from existing material, much as a human does, and then applying that knowledge in a new way. If that's a violation of copyright, then a human doing the exact same thing would be a copyright violation too. But it isn't.

Not if they want to recoup their investment.

We are not really talking about teaching here.

He is prohibited from regurgitating source material, of course! But if he generalized from the books he read and really learned the subject--and even made new connections between ideas--then he is free to write his own book.

If the student is really good at generalizing we wouldn't even be having this debate because he would've just generalized from the same source materials the professor used.

If a professor learns from multiple books, generalizes from them and then shares his knowledge he is providing a valuable service. Versus someone who makes a recording of the professor's lectures and resells them to undercut the professor--that guy is not providing a valuable service.

Can the professor refuse to teach some students, or must he teach all comers?

As it is, insurance rates are rising far faster than inflation rates. Have you checked how much insurance rates have gone on the last few years? It goes up 6% to 25% per year. Where is all this money going? Is it all going to insurance companies? Nope. The price increases are attributable to hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and so on. These price increases are a form of healthcare denial because a lot of people can't even afford health insurance at all, let alone worry about what is approved/denied by insurance companies.

This is cool, but overdone to the point of distracting. Subtle effects can enhance usability but it should be barely noticeable.

An itemized bill from the hospital for about four weeks of his hospital stay. It came to a little over $4 million. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-deaths-families-60-min...

Woman charged $143,396.66 for a breast biopsy https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-doctors-prescription-to-...

Numerous studies have found that when doctors have a financial stake in a hospital, they tend to order more tests and procedures, raising costs for Medicare and other insurers. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/health/policy/republican-...

No, not just Nobel Prize winners. Look it up.

Yes, there is something wrong with the insurance industry. But there is something wrong with the hospitals, doctors and drug companies too. The whole system is broken. Hospitals try to eke out the most out of insurance companies, often providing services that are unnecessary. Pharmaceutical companies charge US patients significantly higher rates than in other countries. Don't put all the blame on insurance companies.

I fear rough waters ahead.

For 2.5 more years.

Chinese students still want to attend US universities [1]. While it is true that the progress made by China is a factor, this administration's policies are the bigger deterrent [2] [3].

[1] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-02-21/why-ch...

[2] https://www.wsj.com/world/china/americas-allure-fades-in-chi...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/06/chinese-studen...

"China can draw on a talent pool of 1.3 billion people, but the United States can draw on a talent pool of 7 billion and recombine them in a diverse culture that enhances creativity in a way that ethnic Han nationalism cannot." --Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore.

Their US address is a mailbox, make of that what you will.

It has been a sustainable strategy for the tech industry for decades.

No it is H-1B visa. Right out of the university it is hard to recognize extraordinary talent. People like Sundar Pichai were not recognized as extraordinary right out of the university, he had to start at the bottom and rise up the ranks.

The current administration's immigration policy isn't helping. This wouldn't have happened 10 years ago because the US was this city on the hill that everyone wanted to immigrate to. Talented Asian researchers would have immigrated to the US and China would be deprived of talent.

Magnesium glycinate and magnesium taurate work for me. I mainly rely on the former.

I take it at night. Unfortunately I haven't found a controlled release version of magnesium that works.

I sometimes also take it during the day when I feel my muscles getting stiff, I get relief within 15 minutes.

They didn't say oxygen is not present. 78% of earth's atmosphere is nitrogen and we are doing fine.

4% conversion to paying customers seems impressive.

Their costs are low, being based in India.

Yes I meant Leo. But Terawave is also satellite based, it looks like.

SpaceX, despite its name is an AI company, supposedly. Its S-1 states that the company estimates its total addressable market (TAM) at $28.5 trillion, of which $26.5 trillion, or 92.98%, is expected to come from AI.

SpaceX is an AI company without a frontier model. Until Jan 2026 SpaceX was an aerospace company. Then xAI was merged into SpaceX on January 30, 2026, so SpaceX became an AI company less than 6 months ago.

You could say that about electricity, water supply, healthcare, AI, etc. These should all be public services, not run by for-profit corporations. But we decided against that approach long ago.