New logo every couple of years and Bob's your uncle.

X/Twitter has became extremely prohibitive with just about everything since Elon took over. Their API pricing was antagonistic toward even indie developers. Elon is not a generous guy.

Almost certainly the easter egg found in the Trump "Big Beautiful Bill" which prevents states from enacting AI regulations also came from Musk.

That way he can continue to steal from others and lock competitors out whilst being comfortable knowing that no laws will be enacted to prevent it.

Well, you explicitly opt-in to Twitter ToS whenever you post anything there.

These are just terms of service, not copyright.

It means that assuming training AI models is fair use (if it wasn't AI companies including xAI would be in trouble), they can't really stop you.

But now, essentially, they are telling you that they can block your account or IP address if you do. Which I believe they can for basically any reason anyways.

Perhaps they want the prohibition on using the site content for AI training to be considered based on something other than their ownership of it, like bandwidth usage or users' rights

It does surprise me that we haven't seen nations revise their copyright window back to something sensible in a play to seed their own nascent AI industry. The American founding fathers thought 20 years was enough. I'm sure there'd be repercussions in the banking system, but at some point it might be worth the trade.

Careful, you might create an artificial superintelligence that way. Safer to just train on the Twitter dataset.

If you thought AI now had out-of-control racism...

It'd look like this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/copyright

I wish someone would update and use PG19 for 7-30B+ model:

https://github.com/google-deepmind/pg19

That gives us a model that's 100% open and reproducible with low, legal risk. It would also be a nice test of how much AI's generalize from or repeat behavior in their pretraining data.

Then, a new model using that, The Stack, and FreeLaw's stuff (by paying them to open source it). No Github Issues or anything with questionable licenses or terms of service violations. That could be the next baseline for lawful models with coding ability, too. Research in coding AI's might use it.

[flagged]

I've similarly wondered if I could get a pre-2024 Wikipedia if just for the "fact based" flavor LLM

Yep, from https://the-decoder.com/reddit-ends-its-role-as-a-free-ai-tr... :

You must not, and must not allow those acting on your behalf to:

...use the Data APIs to encourage or promote illegal activity or violation of third party rights (including using User Content to train a machine learning or AI model without the express permission of rightsholders in the applicable User Content);

if that is any consolation, no one gives a shit about xitter's ToS either. it will continue to be scrapped by every major player.

You can just not use Twitter?

I've been wondering if there's some way to put something into legally-defensible clickwrap around one's own content to deter or annoy misuse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42774179

TLDR: Use contract law so that I provide my content and they give me rights to all outputs.

So if anybody doing this can prove Acme Model contains their artwork, and Acme Model was used to generate some scenes used in a major movie, then Acme has already given the artist a right to share/resell those scenes. If Acme Inc. "sold" exclusive rights to a movie-studio, then either (A) they broke the contact with every contributor, or (B) they lied to the studio in that other contract.

Remember, the goal isn't some amazing "gotcha" where the latest blockbuster movie becomes public domain, but rather to create chronic legal pain and risk for companies like Acme so that they stop stealing stuff.

Same here! It should be a default. Unfortunately, the very openness of the internet is now working against us.

If you live in the EU, GDPR dictates that you own your data generally speaking. If you're in the US it varies by state if you have any rights at all.

Copyright has nothing to do with free expression but was intended to protect the interests of publishers. When the printing press arrived basically any popular book or booklet was quickly copied by others. This meant the original publisher (and sometimes the author, but usually they were paid one-off) saw nothing of the profit.

It seems like it was supposed to do the exact opposite per cursory wiki reading:

> The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662,[16] which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed.[20]

> The Statute of Anne, enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect copyrights (but not authors' rights)

How much do you think Musk values X being a viable independent business vs using it accelerate X AI? I would expect Musk values the first as approximately 0 value, and the second as being 100% of the value. So it makes total sense to exploit the fact that X and X AI are the same company.

Per my experience with GenAI legal teams, that’s a no go.

It’s not been tested in court though

If you don’t want an LLM to view it don’t put it on the public internet.

It will not as long as search engines have access. Which means Google and OpenAI through MS Bing, that's at least.

Without search engines what the point in posting it on open net if nobody can find.

This refers to the API, which you would have to manually attach a bot to so that it could scrape things

Artists can do this, and they do

> If an artist or author can't do this, social media shouldn't be able to do it either.

Even if this is done, the case of starving artist v. megacorp will probably go to whoever wields the most money and lawyers. To add insult to injury, the artist’s opponent is fueled by their ill-gotten gains.

If social media can do this, an artist or author should be able to do it, too.

Social media should do it to set a legal precedent.

> We need regulations to limit the power grabs. Train all you like, but don't dare try to constrain to your walled gardens.

No, no one should train, period.

So I get to use the platform for free, but I also get paid to post on the platform? I'm not sure that makes sense. Like I hate to take the side of big tech, but they can't literally be paying users to use their platform. Just use something else, there are a million social media sites

We really need LLMs for music to become more advanced.

Then maybe the recording companies will start defending artist rights.

Because not sure what all the other industry bodies are doing.

I wanted to do some quick math on this idea- supposed we trained a vanilla transformer model from scratch, as GPT2/GPT3 was done- the number of seen input tokens is known perfectly, as is the sources of those training tokens (since then, everyone has either kept quiet about the sources post-Books3-fiasco, or have been finetuning on top of previous models making this more difficult of a calculation)

GPT-3 was trained on approximately 300 billion tokens. An small sized technical textbook might contain something like... 130,000 tokens? (1 token ~= 0.75 words, ~100k words in the book).

Thus, say you wrote a textbook on quantum mechanics that was included in the training corpus. A naive computation of the fraction of your textbook's contribution to the total number of training tokens would be 300B/130K = 0.0000004333333333, or 0.000043%.

If our hypothetical AI company here reported, say $500M in yearly profit, if all of that was distributed 100% based on our naive training token ratio (notice I say naive because it isn't as simple to say that every training token contributes equally to the final weights of a model. That is part of the magic.) then $500M * 0.000043% = $215.

You could imagine a simpler world where it was required by law that any such profitable company redistribute, say, %20 (taking the 'anti-VAT' idea) back to the copyright holders / originators of the training tokens. So, our fictitious QM textbook author would receive a check in the mail for $43 for that year of $500M in revenue. Not great, but not zero.

Since then, training corpuses are much, much larger, and most people's contributions would be much smaller. Someone who writes witty tweets? Maybe 1/100th the length of our above example in am model with now 100x the training corpus.

So fractions of a penny for your tweets. Maybe that is fitting after all...

> We are in an age of corporate “piracy for me, but not for thee.”

Rather, we are back to that age of state- (now corporate-) backed privateering.

Even if SNR is low, there is some information that only exists on X, or at least is the primary source. Just look at how many submissions on HN are X posts.

That will play out exactly like the "Do not track" bit did.

That will just lead to situations where one company scrapes the site, cleans the content of tags, and sells the data, and another does the training on the precleaned data. The first one hasn't trained and the second one never saw the tag.

It needs to be incorporated into the robots.txt standard.

>There needs to be a worldwide standard, such as an HTML tag, that says "no training"

Any country that seriously implemented this would just end up being completely dominated by the autonomous robot soldiers of another country that didn't, because it effectively bans the development of embodied AGI (which can learn live from seeing/reading something, like a human can).