My understanding is that the copyright applies to reproductions of the work, which this is not. If I provide a summary of a copyrighted summary of a copyrighted work, am I in violation of either copyright because I created a new derivative summary?

Quoting this comment from the HN thread:

On information and belief, the reason ChatGPT can accurately summarize a certain copyrighted book is because that book was copied by OpenAI and ingested by the underlying OpenAI Language Model (either GPT-3.5 or GPT-4) as part of its training data.

While it strikes me as perfectly plausible that the Books2 dataset contains Silverman’s book, this quote from the complaint seems obviously false.

First, even if the model never saw a single word of the book’s text during training, it could still learn to summarize it from reading other summaries which are publicly available. Such as the book’s Wikipedia page.

Second, it’s not even clear to me that a model which only saw the text of a book, but not any descriptions or summaries of it, during training would even be particular good at producing a summary.

We can test this by asking for a summary of a book which is available through Project Gutenberg (which the complaint asserts is Books1 and therefore part of ChatGPT’s training data) but for which there is little discussion online. If the source of the ability to summarize is having the book itself during training, the model should be equally able to summarize the rare book as it is Silverman’s book.

I chose “The Ruby of Kishmoor” at random. It was added to PG in 2003. ChatGPT with GPT-3.5 hallucinates a summary that doesn’t even identify the correct main characters. The GPT-4 model refuses to even try, saying it doesn’t know anything about the story and it isn’t part of its training data.

If ChatGPT’s ability to summarize Silverman’s book comes from the book itself being part of the training data, why can it not do the same for other books?

As the commentor points out, I could recreate this result using a smaller offline model and an excerpt from the Wikipedia page for the book.

I love about relay that no other app does is the built in browser that functions by just swiping down the bar

This is also something I loved, but unfortunately not something I’ll be able to reproduce in a PWA.

I am considering doing some kind of native wrapper that allows me to run two separate webviews so that I could do this and distribute it as an APK on the Play Store. I should already be able to distribute the standard PWA version on app stores.

(Sorry iOS users I don’t have any Apple devices and I’m not going to pay them $100 for the privilege of providing their minority platform value with a free open source app)

That was the number one thing for me as well. I despise the whole swipe 20px to upvote, 40 to downvote, etc. I want clear and obvious UI elements optimized for one handed use, which means little to nothing I have to reach to the top of the phone for

As a fellow Relay user you may be interested in the client I’m working on. I wanted the Relay client for Lemmy but nothing out there mirrors its layout, so I decided to build it myself.

Here’s the Github repo and a short recording of the UI which is already out of date.

I was an avid user of Relay, and unfortunately I haven’t found anything that mirrors its layout and functionality, so I decided to build it myself. Here’s the Github repo and a short recording of the UI which is already out of date. I’ll be releasing it once the permissive CORS PR gets merged and lands in major servers.

Once the PR for more permissive CORS support gets merged and lands in the popular servers there will no longer be a need for wefwef and other apps like it to proxy requests on behalf of users. I’m personally waiting to properly release my WIP client until then, as I really don’t want to take on the burden and responsibility of proxying user data. If you’re a developer you can check my current progress here, and here’s a short video I recorded that is already very out of date.