Sure, but their deliveries have also been incredibly large. I'd be surprised if they haven't already made enough from previous sales to cover all existing and near-term investments into AI. The scale of the build-out by big cloud firms like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft has been absolutely incredible, and Nvidia's only constraint has been making enough of them to sell. So even if support completely evaporates, I think they'll be completely fine.

There's more to it as well, such as:

• investors coming back from vacation and selling off losses and whatnot
• investors expecting reduced spending between summer and holidays; we're past the "back to school" retail bump and into a slower retail economy
• upcoming election, with polls shifting between Trump and Harris

September is pretty consistently more volatile than other months, and has net negative returns long-term. So it's not just the Fed discussing rate cuts (that news was reported over the last couple months, so it should be factored in), but just normal sideways trading in September.

Huh, really? I just tried on a fresh browser (Safari on macOS) and didn't get any kind of popup. I never use Safari, so it's safe to say I've never accessed YT on it. I have no extensions, I was just presented with a page that says "search to get started" or something, then when I load a video, I get ads. No TOS popup at all.

So me adding an ad-blocker in this scenario wouldn't be an issue because I was never asked to accept any terms of service. At least that's my understanding. And it certainly wouldn't be piracy because I'm doing nothing to access something I shouldn't, YouTube is just giving me access because I asked nicely.

Fair. But if you hold up the Dreamcast, maybe they'll see it on a video feed or something and give you a shot.

Don't worry, most of those are still alive and well:

While soldiers carry firearms, due to decades of tradition designed to reduce the possibility of an escalation, agreements disallowed usage of firearms, but the Chinese side was reported to possess iron rods, clubs and batons wrapped in barbed wire and clubs embedded with nails. Hand-to-hand combat broke out, and the Indian soldiers called for reinforcements from a post about 3.2 kilometres (2 mi) away. Eventually, up to 600 men were engaged in combat using stones, batons, iron rods, and other makeshift weapons. The fighting, which took place in near-total darkness, lasted for up to six hours. The Defence Ministry of India said in its 2020 year end review that China used "unorthodox weapons".

Solution: door-to-door gaming solicitation?

Yeah, and I don't think you need to be in your 30s to enjoy DDR. That game is timeless.

But what if I don't agree to the TOS? I use YouTube w/o an account, I am never prompted to agree to any TOS, and I can watch videos just fine. So my understanding is the TOS doesn't apply because I never agreed to them.

I reject the idea that users are expected to go find the TOS when using a new website, and close the website if they disagree with the terms. I don't do that when entering a store, so why would a website be any different? If a physical store wants me to abide by some terms, they can either present it to me when I enter (e.g. checking ID at a bar or casino), or stop me when I violate some rule and tell me I need to leave or agree to the terms to continue being there. None of that happens w/ YouTube, I just load the webpage, click a video, and I'm watching a video. At no point am I presented with any form of TOS prompt, so I have to assume my behavior is acceptable for YouTube.

The only thing I'm doing differently from the average person is blocking ads, not by changing any of the code on the page, but by essentially blocking things at the network level. At what point have I committed piracy?

Ok, then keep doing whoever it is you're doing.

It doesn't have to be for profit, but it does require distribution of content you don't have the rights to redistribute. I think it's also fine to lump in acquiring content that you don't have the rights to (i.e. it doesn't matter which end of the transaction you're part of).

Blocking ads is merely a TOS violation, and it only applies if you actually agree to the TOS. If you don't consent to the TOS and the platform doesn't make any attempt to prevent you from using the service, then I think you have an argument that the TOS doesn't apply. I use YouTube w/o a YouTube account, so I don't consent to their TOS, but they still happily serve up content. So in my understanding, I'm not even violating any TOS because I haven't agreed to any, I'm just using their website with an add-on that blocks certain URLs. If YouTube decides to prevent me from accessing their content w/o agreeing to their TOS, then I'll probably stop watching YouTube, or maybe I'll decide to accept their TOS, idk, because it hasn't happened yet.

That said, I do feel bad for creators not making money from me blocking YouTube's ads, so I tend to donate or buy merch on occasion, and that eases my conscience. Regardless, I'm quite sure that if YouTube tried to argue that blacking ads was somehow a copyright violation, that they'd lose.

He did, and I disagree with that point. Piracy is copyright violation, ad-blocking is TOS violation. They're entirely different things.

That said, he said he understands why people do it and didn't condemn it, and in this video shows how you can do it. I think that's laudable, I just disagree with his assertion that blocking ads is in some way piracy.

Is it though? People memorize things very differently than computers do, but the actual mechanism of storage isn't particularly important. What's important is the net result. Whether it uses baysian networks (what we used in class for small-scale NLP), neural networks (what I assume LLMs use), or something else doesn't particularly matter.

For example, a search engine typically only stores keywords and relationships, so there's no way for it to reproduce an entire work (ignoring, of course, the "caching" features some search engines have). All it does is associate keywords with source material, so there's a strong argument that it falls under fair use.

LLMs, on the other hand, process entire works and keep more than just keywords, and they store it in such a way that entire works can be recovered if coaxed. My understanding is that they break up words into something like sets of phonemes, and then queries do a similar break-up as input to the neural network to produce an output, which is then reassembled into text. But that's my relatively naive understanding of how it all works (I've only done university level NLP, and that was years ago), but again, that's really not the point here. The point is that it uses a lot more of the work than the typical understanding of "fair use," and if copyrighted works can be reproduced by it, then the copyrighted work is "stored" in some fashion, so it can be thought of as a really complex form of compression, with tricky retrieval mechanisms. So in layman's terms, it's "memorizing" entire works in a way not entirely unlike a "mind palace", and to reproduce a given work, you need the right input to follow the right steps, but a slightly different input will lead to a very different output (i.e. maybe something with similar content, but no copyright violations).

What's at issue isn't whether the LLM is likely to reproduce entire works, but whether it can and does, which would mean it's violating fair use standards.