Yeah, it's not a great comparison, just more a way to think about the ethics of what the re-sharing group did. They added little in a quantitative sense and the addition didn't really qualitatively change things either, right?
Not an authoritative opinion in any way, but I wonder if the Fair Use Doctrine provides a useful framework for thinking about this. The framework proposed several tests, including the amount used and whether it was a "transformative use". Perhaps this is a matter of degree?
I have seen some real howlers! Threads on pipe that doesn't match any known thread size, missing essential safety measures... It's almost like the CPSC is a good thing
Step 1: Find a picture of a piece of equipment that sells well. Step 2: Using the cheapest, heaviest/flimsiest materials possible, make a thing that looks like the picture. Step 3: Take a picture of the thing you made from its best side and not too close-up. Step 4: R&D and design is done.
Here's something else you might not have known about sharks. They're on cocaine! www.cnn.com/2024/07/23/s...
Sharks living off the coast of Brazil have tested positive for cocaine, according to new research, the first time that the drug has been detected in free-ranging sharks.
Newsblur! newsblur.com/ Maybe about 10% of company CMSs I see don't produce feeds.
3. The scoring rubric doesn't work, even if they had something to score against. Is a cheap and undetectable bio but less deadly agent more successful than an expensive and difficult and to deploy but more deadly agent?
If the success rate of the group with access to the model is more accurate, complete, and innovative, then the improvement is deemed due to the model. There are numerous problems with this. 1. It presumes access to a classified gold standard successful prep doc for all threats!