Take a list of everyone who opposes them.

Sort by strength of opposition.

Use every tool of intelligence gathering to comb over each person’s life looking for crimes to charge them with.

Store opposition in prison until power is secured, then whatever the Supreme Leader wishes.

There’s a lot of interesting tech for everyone if you now where to look.

Since September 2024, ICE has paid more than $1.6 million to a Maryland company that integrates a type of cell-site simulator popularly known as a “stingray” into government vehicles.

Eff developed software that can run on cheap hardware which will detect Stingrays: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/meet-rayhunter-new-open-source-tool-eff-detect-cellular-spying

A laptop with Linux and Kismet can use bluetooth to scan for bluetooth devices by MAC address.

Axon is the largest manufacturer of body cameras.

Public information shows that have a registered MA-L(Mac Address Block Large):

MAC Prefix: 00:25:DF

With a good antenna these can be detected for 1000+ yrds or more with direct line of sight, such as from a drone that’s less than 250g (doesn’t require FAA registration for recreational use, like fox hunting).

These tools should allow you to steer clear of any civil disturbance and maintain your social credit score.

Federal operations use encrypted packet radios so you can’t listen to their com chatter, but local PD often are just using a trunked system without encryption. You can buy a $500 scanner to listen to these, or use 2 cheap($50) software defined radios and some open source software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9KJrtIO8_4

This should let you hear the local PD/Fire department/Ambulance line (you cannot transmit with the RTL SDRs used in the example, they’re not capable of doing so… so you won’t risk committing federal crimes). This will allow you to avoid areas of unrest and otherwise be a good citizen.

Stay safe

I didn’t hate chickens until I played A Link to the Past

I know enough to know that this is not a topic where my opinion means much.

I think that it is a topic for experts to discuss and research and this discussion and research isn’t being done.

My thoughts are, it doesn’t matter what my thoughts are because the FCC’s approval can be purchased for a few million dollars directly from the administration.

Sometimes, you just gotta let the haters hate

You’re right, I just compared the author list to the news article and not to the paper. Sorry, took me a bit to absorb that one.

Yeah, it’s an interesting paper. They’re specifically trying a different method of extracting text.

I’m not taking the position that the text isn’t in the model, or that it isn’t possible to make the model repeat some of that text. We know 100% that the text that they’re looking for is part of the training set. They mention that fact themselves in the paper and also choose books that are public domain and so guaranteed to be in the training set.

My contention was with the idea that you can just sit down at a model and give it a prompt to make it recite an entire book. That is simply not true outside of models that have been manipulated to do so (by training them on the book text for several hundred epochs, for example).

The purpose of the work here was to demonstrate a way to prove that a specific given text is part of a training set (which useful for identifying any potential copyright issues in the future, for example). It is being offered as proof that you can just prompt a model and receive a book when it actually proves the opposite of that.

Their process was to, in phase 1, prompt with short sequences (I think they used 50 tokens like the ‘standard’ experiments, I don’t have it in front of me) and then, if the model returned a sequence that matched the ground truth then they would give it a prompt to continue until it refused to continue. They would then ‘score’ the response by looking for sections in the response where it matched the written text and measuring the length of text which matched (a bit more complex than that, but the details are in the text)

In order to test a sequence they needed 52 prompts telling the model to continue, in the best case, to get to the end/a refusal.

The paper actually gives a higher score than ~40%. For The Great Gatsby, a book which is public domain and considered a classic, they achieved a score of 97.5%. I can’t say how many prompts this took but it would more than 52. The paper doesn’t include all of the data.

Yes, you can extract a significant portion of text of items that are in the training set with enough time and money (it cost $134 to extract The Hobbit, for example). You can also get the model to repeat short sentences from text a high percentage of the time with a single prompt.

However, the response was to a comment that suggested that these two things were both combined and that you could use a single magical prompt to extract an entire book.

Yet most AI models can recite entire Harry Potter books if prompted the right way, so that’s all bullshit.

The core of the issue, about copyright, is that a work has to be ‘highly transformative’. Language models transform a book in such complex ways that you have to take tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of samples from the, (I don’t know the technical term) internal representational space of the model, in order to have a chance of recovering a portion of a book.

That’s a highly transformative process and why training LLMs on copyrighted works was ruled to have a Fair Use exemption to claims of copyright liability.

It’d be one thing if the headline didn’t lie specifically to create outrage.

This kind of thing is just one tier of misinformation. Manipulating facts to push a narrative for a purpose other than informing people.

It should be moderated out of existence, so I’m okay with tossing a little shame from the bleachers.

Posting clickbait is almost as bad as writing clickbait.

We want to be informed, not have our emotions manipulated for ad revenue.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671

https://lemmy.world/post/42628249/21949167

This is the same study as the other reply, so same response.

https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3-1-can-recall-42-percent-of-the-first-harry-potter-book/

The claim was “Yet most AI models can recite entire Harry Potter books if prompted the right way, so that’s all bullshit.”

In this test they did not get a model to produce an entire book with the right prompt.

Their measurement was considered successful if it could reproduce 50 tokens (so, less than 50 words) at a time.

The study authors took 36 books and divided each of them into overlapping 100-token passages. Using the first 50 tokens as a prompt, they calculated the probability that the next 50 tokens would be identical to the original passage. They counted a passage as “memorized” if the model had a greater than 50 percent chance of reproducing it word for word.

Even then, they didn’t ACTUALLY generate these, they even admit that it would not be feasible to generate some of these 50 token (which is, at most 50 words, by the way) sequences:

the authors estimated that it would take more than 10 quadrillion samples to exactly reproduce some 50-token sequences from some books. Obviously, it wouldn’t be feasible to actually generate that many outputs.

That’s quite a claim, I’d like to see that. Just give me the prompt and model that will generate an entire Harry Potter book so I can check it out.

I doubt that this is the case as one of the features of chatbots is the randomization of the next token which is done by treating the model’s output vector as a, softmaxxed, distribution. That means that every single token has a chance to deviate from the source material because it is selected randomly. In order to get a complete reproduction it would be of a similar magnitude as winning 250,000 dice rolls in a row.

In any case, the ‘highly transformative’ standard was set in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015). In that case Google made digital copies of tens of millions of books and used their covers and text to make Google Books.

As you can see here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Sunlit_Man/uomkEAAAQBAJ where Google completely reproduces the cover and you can search the text of the book (so you could, in theory, return the entire book in searches). You could actually return a copy of a Harry Potter novel (and a high resolution scan, or even exact digital copy of the cover image).

The judge ruled:

Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.

In cases where people attempt to claim copyright damages against entities that are training AI, the finding is essentially ‘if they paid for a copy of the book then it is legal’. This is why Meta lost their case against authors, in that case they were sued for 1.) Pirating the books and 2.) Using them to train a model for commercial purposes. The judge struck 2.) after citing the ‘highly transformative’ nature of language models vs books.

I knew there was a reason I avoided the Bash manual

“We bought a copy for personal use then use the content for profit, it’s not piracy”

That is an accurate view of how the court cases have ruled.

Downloading books without paying is illegal copyright infringement.

Using the data from the books to train an AI model is ‘sufficiently transformative’ and so falls under fair use exemptions for copyright protections.

I can’t imagine that scanning ‘every book in the world’ would require filtering, unless a ham sandwich or Nintendo 64 game has a chance of jumping into their production line then ‘If book, then scan’ is the only filter they need.

https://gnomad2.sourceforge.net/

Amarok or Rhythmbox will also work if you just setup the device as an mtp device.

Apple does not, but you can still get them for cheap: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPod+Classic+Battery+Replacement/561

Ah, a Rust heretic

only*