If the sword isn’t part of any of the lions, I don’t see why the bullet would have to be one of the robot-animal-vehicles.

No, police and the State are not the people. They are given authority and privilege that the people don’t have, in particular qualified immunity.

Thanks for the clarification. I was too young to program the 2600. I started programming on PC-compatible.

IIRC, the 2600 didn’t have a graphics processor. So, you had to “chase the ray” with CPU instructions, which made for some interesting limitations.

I was very confused by your post because “us” was read by me as “microseconds” instead of how you meant it as “USD”.

I was thinking “100 microseconds is a really short play time; surely people listen it the tracks for at least that long.”

I wonder if the numbers are that old, too? There’s a source organization listed, but not a link to the specific data. If it’s old, I’d like to know that. If it’s new, I’d like to check it for the Qobuz payout (which I’ve heard is slightly better than Tidal.)

I think we’d be in a much more agreeable place if we just legally state that a commercial AI tools training isn’t fair use.

Good luck getting any federal law changes through before 2028, at best. So, for at least a couple of years, we get to use the existing laws to address generative “AI”'s use of works still under copyright protection.

Any change in status before then we be policy changes by the U.S. Copyright Office, but they have already come down against training (mostly; the publications are long because there’s a lot of nuance).

Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors’ work to train

But, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (Judge Chhabria, June 25, 2025) states that “in most cases,” training LLMs on copyrighted works without permission is likely infringing and not fair use and “this ruling does not stand for the proposition that […] use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful.”

The courts are divided, but the copyright office is not.

The document you referenced below appears to be as-yet not officially published

Parts 1 and 2 are officially published.

On May 9, 2025, the Office released a pre-publication version of Part 3 […] A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future, without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions.

Maybe this will help: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seci58

I haven’t internalized all of it yet.

I think this is the most direct answer:

Simply put, if people impose themselves by force on others then “they will be the government” and “we will oppose them with force” for “if today we want to make a revolution against the government, it is not in order to submit ourselves supinely to new oppressors.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 99] This applies to defending a free society against organised counter-revolution and against those within it conducting anti-social (“criminal”) activities. The principle is the same, it is just the scale which is different.

The “bunch of vigilantes” will be accountable to the people because they will be the people. They will act to reject anti-social activities, re-educate people that chose to do anti-social acts (so they have a pro-social understanding), and remediate any harms due anti-social activities.

browser fingerprinting

Thing is, while it wasn’t called “browser fingerprinting” immediately, it basically started as soon as JS was around. And feature-detection / media-queries actually make for better compatibility than just User-Agent strings (and other headers).

Content negotiation never really caught on, as best as I can tell. There’s a number of headers that the client can send so that the server can select a version by language, content-type, and a few other things, but in all the web deployments I’ve ever done content-negotiation was never a consideration.

Almost any information can be abused.

I’ve not seen evidence of it in any of my interactions with generative AI, which have pretty universally been bad. I feel like it has something to do with autonomous spontaneity. I recognize it in animals I can’t communicate well with, but I found it lacking in the LLM that I tried to play a TTRPG with. It would be easier for me to be convinced, if I really had a better understanding of what thought is. It’s hard for me to be convinced because while I understand LLMs and diffusion networks better than most people*, I don’t think I understand thought so I recognize the gap.

Also I’m not sure I agree with your final assertion, the stoner buddy is plenty wrong, but there is a coherency there. When coherency disappears entirely from human thought that’s usually a seizure or stroke. Even as confusing as they are dreams and acid trips often have a coherency while you are in them, if not one that’s easily described when recalling the experience.

*: My formal AI training ended before big data met ML, so it’s woefully out of date. I am quite the computer geek tho, it’s just my passion tends toward languages, type systems, and proof assistants. So, better than most, but not an expert by any means.

In libertarian socialism, the people are the police. There’s no States, so no state-organized and state-privileged police force. I could be wrong though, I still need a lot of education around libertarian socialism; I’m very much used to Capitalism.

Yup. Give a Markov chain multi-billion parameters and you can get some surprisingly cogent results.

I will freely admit that current LLM architectures include several innovations that make them not actually Markov chains, but it’s still statistics and linear algebra. I don’t know what thought is, but I’m quite unconvinced that LLMs (or any current generative AI architecture) is doing it.

It’s unclear that is inevitable, but it does seem to be a common result of State socialism.

In libertarian socialism, hoarding resources will be recognized as an attack on the commons that can be answered with an attack (by the people) on the hoarder.

Commercializing a work virtually guarantees it’s creation isn’t “fair use”.

But also, “fair use” is actually quite a bit more narrow than just non-commercial.

There’s been a couple court cases (that I know of / at least), and one judge was accepting on the argument that model training was a “fair use” while the other was not. I think both of those rulings came down prior to the publication of the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines.

Also, I’m not 100% sure that the U.S. Copyright Office is an authority here. The DOJ and/or Federal judiciary would have the authority to interpret the copyright laws: The DOJ to decide to prosecute, and the judiciary to make binding rulings and/or advise juries. I’m sure both the DOJ and the judiciary will give a lot of weight to the guidelines, but the guidelines aren’t actually the law.

In any case, you can read the guidelines and make your own decisions: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ Part 3 is about training, and I think the damning bits are III, B and D. Part 2 is about outputs, and I think the damning bits are II, B and D.2. (My summaries: 1. Training infringes 2. Outputs that are substantially similar infringe 3. models get no copyright 4. prompts are NOT ‘human creative effort’ and thus are insufficient to establish copyright 5. human creative effort still gets copyright protections, even when generative AI is used as a tool in the creative process.)

It is likely that commercial generative AI is in violation of a lot of copyrights, yes. Research projects are fair use, but only as long as they stay research projects.

Without copyright, what LLMs raiding the creative output of whoever (including by destroying and scanning books), and reproducing it, even exactly, wouldn’t have any legal restrictions, but neither would overt piracy.

It would be a very different world. So, depending on what you think is “wrong” with one of the listed activities but not the other, it might be solved by eliminating IP (as part of overthrowing Capitalism or otherwise). Also, the current private justifications of those behaviors would no longer acquiring or obtaining capital, but that doesn’t mean people wouldn’t pursue those behaviors for other justifications.

I think in a socialist world, a great many artists will still find themselves working to make a living; they will work for the community instead of the Capitalists, but there will still be work to be done, and art may not keep your belly full in lean times. But, I also have problems imagining a socialist world.

AI training only makes a copy incidentally to what they’re doing and then it’s deleted. It’s the same standard that makes viewing a photo on an artists website legal.

That’s not what the U.S. Copyright office says about training. They hold that it does implicate the copyright of reproduction. Meaning: If you train on a protected work without a license you are violating copyright, and if that’s not a fair use then you are breaking the law.

Training ~ viewing might be an analogy used by “AI” brands, but it is not legal reality.

They used to provide like a 3-day trial, but I couldn’t find any sort of offer like that currently active.

If you are just curious about what they have on their streaming service, you can get a rough estimate by browsing their download store. It’s not a perfect match, but it’s very close. It is quite rare for an artist / studio / publisher to let Qobuz stream it but not sell a download or vice-versa.