Copyright law is more or less always formulated as limits on the rights to redistribute content, not how it is used. Hence, it isn’t a particularly strange position to take that one should be allowed to do whatever one wants with gen AI in the private confines of ones home, and it is only at the moment you start to redistribute content we have to start asking the difficult questions: what is, and what is not, a derivative work of the training data? What ethical limitations, if any, should apply when we use an algorithm to effortlessly copy “a style” that another human has spent lots of effort to develop?

MasterCard’s and Valve’s statements seems to point at Stripe and PayPal as the ones who folded to the pressure. These payment processors then cited MasterCard’s rules to back up their change in policy.

MasterCard now clarifying that the payment processors are over-interpreting the rules and anything legal is ok seems a very good thing here. Valve should be able to go back to Stripe and PayPal with this and say: “Hey, you’ve misunderstood the rules you are quoting; MasterCard themselves say anything legal is ok, and that is the exact policy we’ve been using!”

Also id probably lose 4 of these before giving up outright.

You buy them in bags of 20ish, and keep buying them until you have established an equilibrium in your home where there always are a few around to put on new bags. I’m not joking.

I discovered that recent versions of the built-in photo apps on Android flat out refuses to do this. The UI for removing location info is there, but it is intentionally blocked if the exif info was added automatically by GPS (i.e., it only works if you manually have set a location). It seems so weird, and outright evil, to block one of the key ways for people to stay safe.

The only reason this is “click bait” is because someone chose to do this, rather than their own mental instability bringing this out organically.

This is my point. The case we are discussing now isn’t noteworthy, because someone doing it deliberately is equally “impressive” as writing out a disturbing sentence in MS Paint. One cannot create a useful “answer engine” without it being capable of producing something that looks weird/provoking/offensive when taken out of context; no more than one can create a useful drawing program that blocks out all offensive content. Nor is it a worthwhile goal.

The cases to care about are those where the LLM takes a perfectly reasonable conversation off the rails. Clickbait like the one in the OP is actually harmful in that they drown out such real cases, and is therefore deserving of ridicule.

Does the marketing matter when the reason for the offending output is that the user spent significant deliberate effort in coaxing the LLM to output what it did? It still seems like MS Paint with extra steps to me.

I get not wanting LLMs to unprompted output “offensive content”. Just like it would be noteworthy if “Clear canvas” in MS Paint sometimes yielded a violent bloody photograph. But, that isn’t what is going on in OPs clickbait.

And, the thing is, LLMs are quite well protected. Look what I coaxed MS Paint to say with almost no effort! Don’t get me started on plain pen and paper! Which we put in the hands of TODDLERS!