• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle



  • Do the rom hack right.

    • Toll roads everywhere. Paid each time you enter.
    • Pokemart is a monopoly and gouges you.
    • Arceusism is the state religion and others are barely tolerated.
    • Gyms are privatized and cost per attempt.
    • Pokemon sweatshops.
    • PC access is a freemiun model where you get the first 5 for free, but beyond that you have to pay for Pokestorage+ and pay monthly. Also pokes come out hating you so pretty sure they getting abused. And occasionally pokes get lost.



  • On the first option: I wasn’t suggesting all of that. The Ethernet seems to be able to run video signal and USB signal - maybe on one cable and maybe on 2 cables. So you’re just talking about a cat6 to HDMI/USB adapters and a monitor and a USB hub/ keyboard/ mouse in the shop, and a regular PC and adapters in the office. 500 feet of burial rated cat6 is around $160.

    I was just offering another potential solution - no need to get snarky. If you need the power on your device, or you don’t want to fuck around with transferring files back and forth, that seems like a better option. But like I said initially - I haven’t done this - I just know that others have and it might be worth checking out.






  • I can take the entirety of Harry Potter, run it thru chat gpt to ‘rewrite in the style of Lord of the rings’, and rename the characters. Assuming it all works correctly, everything should be reworded. But, I would get deservedly sued into the ground.
    News articles might be a different subject matter, but a blatant rewording of each sentence, line by line, still seems like a valid copyright claim.
    You have to add context or nuance or use multiple sources. Some kind of original thought. You can’t just wholly repackage someone else’s work and profit off of that.


  • I doubt they did the ‘rewrote this text like this’ prompt you state. This would just come out in any trial if it was that simple and would be a giant black mark on the paper for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

    If we rule that out, then it means that gpt had article text in its knowledge base, and nyt was able to get it to copy that text out in its response.
    Even that is problematic. Either gpt does this a lot and usually rewrites it better, or it does that sometimes. Both are copyright offenses.

    Nyt has copyright over its article text, and they didn’t give license to gpt to reproduce it. Even if they had to coax the text out thru lots of prompts and creative trial and error, it still stands that gpt copied text and reproduced it and made money off that act without the agreement of the rights holder.