Some lower bounds have been established: https://oeis.org/A099155

I think you meant compression. This is exactly how I prefer to describe it, except I also mention lossy compression for those that would understand what that means.

Because it is harmful to the creators that use the value of their work to make a living.

There already exists a choice in the marketplace: creators can attach a permissive license to their work if they want to. Some do, but many do not. Why do you suppose that is?

you think authorship is so valuable or so special that one should be granted a legally enforceable monopoly at the loosest notions of authorship

Yes, I believe creative works should be protected as that expression has value and in a digital world it is too simple to copy and deprive the original author of the value of their work. This applies equally to Disney and Tumblr artists.

I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

I’ll repeat what you said with emphasis:

AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

The emphasized part is incorrect. It’s not the same, yet your argument seems to be that because (your claim) it is the same, then it’s no different from a human reading all of these books.

Regarding your last point, copyright law doesn’t just kick in because you try to pass something off as an original (by, for ex, marketing a book as being from a best selling author). It applies based on similarity whether you mention the original author or not.

AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does

This statement is the basis for your argument and it is simply not correct.

Training LLMs and similar AI models is much closer to a sophisticated lossy compression algorithm than it is to human learning. The processes are not at all similar given our current understanding of human learning.

AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from, so why would it be illegal?

The current Disney lawsuit against Midjourney is illustrative - literally, it includes numerous side-by-side comparisons - of how AI models are capable of recreating iconic copyrighted work that is indistinguishable from the original.

If a machine can replicate your writing style because it could identify certain patterns, words, sentence structure, etc then as long as it’s not pretending to create things attributed to you, there’s no issue.

An AI doesn’t create works on its own. A human instructs AI to do so. Attribution is also irrelevant. If a human uses AI to recreate the exact tone, structure and other nuances of say, some best selling author, they harm the marketability of the original works which fails fair use tests (at least in the US).

Even if it didn’t outright display the code you need to enter, my guess is this and similar implementations hide further vulnerabilities like: the numbers aren’t generated with a secure random number generator, or the validation call isn’t resistant to simple brute force quickly guessing every possible number, or the number is known client side for validation, etc.

Well that’s easy. The protests aren’t illegal. Therefore this amounts to nothing.

Fuck this dude.

Well that didn’t age well, did it.

It’s shocking to me that I recognize every person on this diagram except for the very center.

Yes, it’s equally as unrealistic as leaving money idle for 532 yrs.

The only point I was making was that multiplying $5,000 a day by so many years is a silly comparison as it ignores the dominating factors to building wealth.

Billionaires shouldn’t exist but also they don’t exist because they stuff X dollars under their mattress every day.

Not really with that amount of time. Suppose you put away $1,000 a year for 532 years, at 3% you still end up with $225 billion.

The deposits are completely dwarfed by the compounding interest. If you only start with $1,000 and add nothing else but let that original $1,000 compound at 4% you’ll have over $1 trillion.

Yeah, I had to go down to 3% for it to even make sense.

But if you made just 3% interest on your money as you deposit $1,825,000 annually, over 532 years, you’d end up having $410 trillion dollars or more than 2,000 bezos.

If only this meant the removal of the annoying tiles for games that show up in the app above everything else (often using up the entire screen) even though I’ve never tapped on them once.

I don’t want your games Netflix. I barely want your shows.

Probably the best idea I guess as long as you can set the TV up without Internet.

I’m pretty happy with Chromecast currently for its simplicity. I meant to try and replace the TV firmware so it’s more or less a dumb TV that just displays its inputs without having ads and other gimmicks.

The TV I currently have is Android OS but the built in Chromecast is noticeably lower quality. Not sure if it’s an older version or what.

Regardless, IMO the displays themselves outlast their software support, and I prefer to just plug in whatever the latest device.

I’ll also mention Android OS on my TV takes a full minute to “boot” and that itself makes me want to yeet it out the window.

My TV is probably going to kick the bucket in a year or two at most. Filtering “non smart TVs” on a site like BestBuy shows only commercial display options at this point.

Are there any well maintained projects out there that are able to replace the firmware on newer smart TVs to get rid of these features? I really just want a dumb display with an input for a Chromecast with CEC support (or similar device if Google decides to enshittify that platform with screensaver ads too).

This is giving me 1998 MS Publisher vibes and I’m here for it.