FaceDeer

Yet another area where the big companies are voluntarily leaving money on the table for the open model users to rake in. I approve.

A classic case of making a ridiculously restrictive change, then “walking it back” to a merely semi-ridiculous change and having everyone sigh in relief.

Fill it with white powder and the reaction will cause more damage than a bomb would have caused.

I mean, do those headcount numbers count contractors?

I linked the source for my information, feel free to dig into it for more detail.

Beyond that, unless you have an actual source for the culture shift beyond ‘you think so’

I literally said I didn’t know whether there had been a culture shift. Reread the last line of my comment. All I’m doing here is pointing out that your own view on the subject is likely very outdated at this point. There’s been enormous employee turnover, including right to the top CEO position, and other major companies have merged into Microsoft in the interim.

I’m willing to bet it is now even worse.

Based on?

I’m not doubting your previous experience. I’m just pointing out that it was a long time ago and a lot has happened since then, so I’d like to hear some more recent evidence.

The Red Ring of Death was around 2009 or so, Windows 8 rolled out in 2012. That was 14 years ago now.

Headcount numbers:

• 2012: ~94,000 employees.
• 2026: ~228,000 employees.

The median tenure of employment at Microsoft is 5.3 years, so most of those 94,000 employees will be long gone by now.

Also, Satya Nadella took over in 2014 and made major changes to the corporate culture from the earlier Balmer era. Stack ranking was abolished, there were major corporate acquisitions that brought external corporate cultures inside (eg LinkedIn, GitHub, ZeniMax/Bethesda, Activision Blizzard, Nokia).

I have no idea what Microsoft’s current internal culture is like but I think your impression is likely quite outdated by this point.

For someone who likes digging around in my Reddit history you’d think you’d be able to find something that was actually relevant to the topic at hand. That was a comment about the uses of agentic coding tools for making custom applications, not about building bots.

The only thing keeping the bot population low here is that there just aren’t enough people here to be worth it yet. If the Fediverse grows they’ll come in greater numbers.

There’s a master “kill switch” for all AI features in Firefox now. I suggest everyone who’s concerned about this kind of thing just go and turn it off, and then we need never bother each other over this again.

And also, people are really spoiled with existing internet speeds. When I joined the Internet it was still relying on telephone modems for much of the connectivity. There’s plenty you can do with that. The Fediverse, right here, is an example - just ordinary text communication.

It had some technical issues earlier on but it’s up and running right now. Looks pretty active.

It did convey a useful concept, until it started getting used for basically everything to mean “thing that used to be better but I don’t like now.”

It got enshittified.

any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed

Guess it won’t be labelled, then.

Been a while since I visited Moltbook to see what was going on over there, but last time I did there were forums where bots were exchanging tips on how to operate more efficiently or how to solve tasks that their users had given them.

Let them have their own space.

I have never been afraid of being falsely accused of assault or rape because I have never done anything even close to anything that can be defined as assault or rape, or shown any behavior or tendencies to do so.

I think you’re missing the basic definition of what a false accusation is, here. The whole point of it is that you didn’t do the thing that you’re being accused of.

It’s serving the will of prudes, religious fruitcakes, inattentive parents, the technologically illiterate, and anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the “think of the children!” Rhetoric of the control-freaks.

Unfortunately this is a rather large constituency.

You seem to have forgotten that this is a social media website comments section discussion, not a court of law.

And you are forgetting that it’s a discussion about a court of law. It’s right in the title, this is about a lawsuit.

You’re presenting a big wall of text that’s explaining your opinions on the matter. I could likewise present a big wall of text that explains my opinions on the matter. Neither of those things actually matter, though. The title and subject of this thread is not “hey, what do you all think about this stuff?” It’s “here’s what the US Supreme Court ruled (or in this case chose to let stand without making a ruling).”

I get what your opinion is. I’ve seen this opinion presented plenty of times over the years. I don’t think that’s how the courts are going to rule, though, because so far they’ve been ruling in other ways and I think I’ve got a pretty firm understanding of why they’ve been ruling that way.

Still, this all feels a bit like Schroedinger’s Copyrighted Work to me… the work exists, so who made it?

It’s simply not the court’s job to determine this, in this particular case. Which is why it’s so frustrating that this particular case keeps ending up under headlines claiming that it’s established that “AI generated art can’t be copyrighted.”

All the rest of this argument is out of scope of this case, you’d need to look to other cases. You can argue and opine however you like about what you think the outcomes should be but that doesn’t change what the outcomes of those cases actually end up being.

I’m not a lawyer, maybe you are. I can’t fully speak to the legalities at play.

This is specifically about legalities, though.

AI simply cannot produce an output without consuming other works to be used as training data.

Obviously an AI can’t work without being trained. Neither can a human.

The issue is about the legalities of this process.

From what I understand, the scope of those judgments are limited to the specific context of those uses, as well as the jurisdiction in which they were made, right?

As is the case for basically all court judgements, yeah. But once one’s been made it becomes precedent that can be cited in subsequent cases that makes them go the same way a lot easier. So when a court rules that Anthropic was operating within fair use when it trained its LLMs off of books that makes it a lot more likely that OpenAI will win a ruling about its own similar training processes. They’re opinions that matter.

It’s worth noting, for the sake a more complete discussion, this draft report from the United States Copyright Office from May 2025,

Also worth noting that this is the lowest starting level for regulation. The US Copyright Office makes rules like these, then they get challenged in court and the court that can decide whether those rules actually conform to the law. Thaler v. Perlmutter is exactly such a case.

I think if you look at something as blatant as the OpenAI Studio Ghibli filter, it’s very clear that the works that were used in training could have been, and almost certainly should have been licensed from Studio Ghibli for the creation of such a feature

Okay, you think that. What do the judges think? That’s what it ultimately comes down to.

I should note that it’s a very long-standing and well established principle that style cannot be copyrighted.

I was wondering what I’d done to warrant this attention. It’s kind of puzzling - I’m not keeping my Reddit account “secret”, I link to it and mention my interests in my profile bio. But XLE has been acting like he was a sleuth cracking a case.