laws

the reason is the laws of physics

by

Surely you already know (online advertising is reminding you day in and day out) that with a simple prompt you can generate a video game. The AI ​​does it for you, but what it can’t do is play it. The reason is not that games are difficult in the abstract: it is that the real world obeys the same physical laws everywhere, and video games do not. Do, not play. The paradox is striking: with tools like Cursor either Claudea prompt generates a clone of a functional classic game. ‘Asteroids’, for example. However, that same system would not even surpass the first level of its own creation. Julian Togelius, director of the Game Innovation Lab at New York University and co-founder of the testing company Modl.ai, has been investigating why for months, and has broken it down in an interview. Programming is not a game. Togelius defines programming from a structural point of view: a very well designed game. Each line of code comes with a clear statement, a verifiable success criterion and feedback on possible failures, and the program indicates exactly where and why it failed. LLMs (language models) have been trained with massive amounts of code and fine-tuned using reinforcement learning to solve exactly those types of problems. Programming is, in terms of task structure, an exceptionally “well-behaved” game, as Togelius defines it. That’s why so many people find programming fun. However, video games are another story: the action space is governed by more arbitrary rules, feedback can be immediate or take hours to arrive, spatial reasoning is essential and the margin of error is much smaller. When an AI model is asked to play something, the result documented in the paper that Togelius made is unequivocal: “absolute failure.” With a guide, please. Gemini 2.5 Pro completed ‘Pokémon Blue’ in May 2025, but it took considerably longer than any human player, made repetitive mistakes, and relied on auxiliary software to achieve it. The TIME magazine analyzed Why the best AI systems still struggle with ‘Pokémon’. And that is one of the few titles that manage to finish. They achieve this because these systems have specific APIs to consult strategic guides. That ‘Pokémon’ or ‘Minecraft’ (another title that AIs can navigate) are two of the most documented franchises in the history of video games, with millions of hours of walkthroughs available on the internet, is the key to making it easier for them. The key is in physics. But… why can a language model write an essay on quantum physics and at the same time fail in both ‘Halo’ and ‘Space Invaders’? Togelius’s response is that “those two games are more different from each other, in a sense, than two different academic essays.” Looked at another way: video games are very heterogeneous. Each one invents their own rules, their own space logic, their own reward system. The mechanics of a platform game are absolutely different from those of a ‘Tetris’. Spatial reasoning (where objects are, how they move, how they relate) does not appear in the pre-training data of the language models because it cannot be understood from one game to the next. However, let’s look at a task seemingly more difficult than playing ‘Super Mario’: driving a self-driving car. And AIs do that well. The difference with games is that the real world obeys the same physical laws anywhere on the planet. The asphalt behaves the same in San Francisco as in Shanghai, the traffic lights follow the same principles, the vehicle always responds the same. As Togelius points out, “driving is much more homogeneous than video games as a whole.” Learn to drive and you can do it anywhere on the planet. Learn how to play ‘Doom’ and you will have no idea how to play ‘Age of Empires’. The definitive criterion. That is why Togelius proposes video games as a criterion to determine the success of an AI: it is necessary to gauge whether an agent capable of learning can complete any game in the top 100 on Steam in approximately the same time as a skilled human player, without access to prior documentation or specific integration. To that scale (which does not require winning on the first try, but rather learning at a human pace) there is no system today that comes close. Header | Photo of Erik Mclean in Unsplash In Xataka | AI entered video games as an experiment. Today more than 80% of developers no longer know how to produce without it

Someone has taken more than 12,000 Spanish laws and converted them to source code. It is a real gem to search for legislation

by

If you have ever prepared for competitive exams and are looking for the legislation that you have to prepare for or need to consult a law for any management, you will have already realized that the Official State Gazette is a pain. (also applies to regional versions) to find out what is current and what has changed: transpositions, various PDFs, annexes and cross references that make you go crazy. You are not alone: ​​sooner or later it has happened to everyone. Until now you only had two alternatives: consult with someone who did know about the subject to clear your doubts or resort to artificial intelligence to then carefully check that nothing is left out. To the computer engineer Enrique Lopez It must have happened to him too and he took action on the matter. The project. Is called Legalize and it is in a few words a digital repository of state and regional legislation available on GitHub, as if it were a computer project. Thus, it has translated more than 12,000 regulations in force in the state (both state and regional), each one into a Markdown file with plain text on which you can search for what interests you. In addition, each of the laws are grouped in folders based on their jurisdiction. In short: one law, one file, one folder, one jurisdiction. The organization follows the standard ELI (European Legislation Identifier). As the project’s GitHub explains, all content comes from the BOE Consolidated Legislation APIthe text of the legislation is public domain. What Legalize-es provides is structure, version control and metadata. What has changed about this law. But the laws have their drafts, consolidated texts and subsequent reforms, so sometimes being clear about what is in force and what is not is an odyssey. So you added each reform as a commit, with the actual publication date. This way, even if you have no idea about laws, you can see what exactly has changed in the regulations: in red is what is deleted and in green is what is added. We see it better with an example, that of Royal Decree-Law 8/2010: Royal Decree-Law 8/2010 Why is it important. Beyond the practicality of access of this format, the true relevance is that anyone can know what has changed in a law without tricks or cardboard. It is true that the BOE is public, but it is far from friendly. On the other hand, when a law is reformed, it is easy to lose sight of previous regulations. With this format it is easy to know what has changed and when. Context. In a state like Spain where the normative production report of the CEOE for 2024 (the last one released) lists 719 regulations, being up to date with regulations that affect matters as important as taxes or retirement is an arduous task. The digitization of current legal regulations is a pending issue that this project addresses as a civic hack: using technology to simplify and clarify what the administration hinders. How it works. The core of legalize-es is the automation of legislative data through a pipeline, that is, with a “robot” that periodically monitors the BOE’s Consolidated Legislation API. The system extracts the text from the official PDF and cleans it of strange formats, leaving it in plain text. Once processed, the law is integrated into a Git version control system where each reform does not overwrite the previous one, but is saved as a new layer to allow access to the history of changes, which allows traceability. In Xataka | The “ChatGPT for lawyers” exists, it was born in Spain and has just reached a milestone: becoming a unicorn Cover | Flickr

defy the laws of gravity

by

There is no need to brush up on school time to know that rivers originate in the mountains and literally fall to the sea. Essentially gravity takes care of everything. This is how all the rivers on the planet work. What’s more, if you yourself spill a glass of water on the floor you could discover if there is an unevenness. But sometimes there is fine print and it can confuse what at first seems logical. What’s wrong with the Green River?. Without going any further, the green river in Colorado (United States) It has been making the scientific community think for 157 years because this river flows against all odds through the Uinta Mountains (Wyoming/Utah) instead of around them to flow into the Colorado River. A recent study has found the solution to this mystery by investigating the geodynamic mechanism that makes it possible. The Green River in Utah. Droid41, CC BY-SA 3.0 The context. To understand why it is essential to talk before those Uinta Mountainsa most unusual mountain range in that it runs from east to west, unlike most of the United States, for almost 250 kilometers. With peaks up to 4,000 meters high, it is also the highest of those arranged in this way. The bulk of the US mountain ranges follow a North-South orientation due to the tectonic forces between the pacific plates and the north american plate. The Uintas are the most prominent case of transverse structure and their origin is due to much older faults that were reactivated. More specifically, the Uinta were formed about 50 million years ago. The Green River, for its part, traced its current channel less than 8 million years ago where there is something that draws attention: a canyon that the river eroded in the middle of the mountain range of about 700 meters in length, the Canyon of Lodore. The tributaries of the Colorado. Shannon – Background and river course data from DEMIS Mapserver and The National Map, both public domain, CC BY-SA 4.0 Better to cross than to go around. Rivers flow according to gravity, yes, but also following the path that offers least resistance (in general). Following this basis of geology, it seems a priori surprising that the Green decided to traverse the mountain range instead of through it. The canyon is a mechanical paradox in an environment without active compressive tectonics, that of the Uinta. The study and the discovery. Rivers have memories, so by studying their current shape you can reconstruct what the terrain was like before. To do this, they used a mathematical model (a 2D topographic inversion of the river networks) that allowed them to reconstruct the ancient topography. Then they detected a rise in the terrain of about 450 meters in the center of the mountain range with a circular pattern. This particularity was validated with a seismic tomographya type of terrestrial ultrasound that allows you to see hundreds of kilometers below the ground, which revealed a lithospheric blob. What is a lithospheric drop? A dense mass of mountain root that breaks off and sinks into the deep mantle, acting as an internal engine that deformed the surface and allowed the Green River to pass through the mountain barrier. The lead author of the study, Adam Smithhe explained in a press release that “We believe we have gathered enough evidence to demonstrate that lithospheric trickling is responsible for pulling up the terrain enough to allow rivers to link and merge” thus establishing the permanent channel that remains today. Why is it important. Because this geological event united two of the largest river systems in North America, thus modifying the drainage of the continent, which also has its implications at the level of biodiversity, as it allowed different species to interbreed. On the other hand, it is the umpteenth reminder that the Earth’s interior continues to shape the landscape, sometimes abruptly, in areas that seem geologically dead. How it all happened. With the Stokes’s Law and fluvial response time, they estimated that this landslide occurred 2.3 to 4.7 million years ago. The model suggests that this drip first generated a topographic subsidence that allowed the Green River to surpass the barrier of the mountains and begin its incision. When that dense root was removed, the isostatic and dynamic uplift that we see today was generated. In a sentence: first the mountain crouched down to let the river pass and then it rose abruptly, forcing the river to cut through the rock to maintain its course. In Xataka | The US has a plan for its rivers: bombard them with 6,000 logs from helicopters to fix a decades-old mistake In Xataka | Finally we have salmon without an environmental footprint, without overfishing and without microplastics. It’s just not salmon Cover | mypubliclands, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia

For years, TV ads have been louder without violating any laws. Spain has decided that this is over

by

A common experience among millions of viewers: you are watching your favorite series at a comfortable volume when an advertising block bursts in, forcing you to rush headlong towards the remote control. This calculated shock could have its days numbered in Spain thanks to quantifiable technical criteria to monitor the sound level of advertisements. The law. The National Markets and Competition Commission has established for the first time a series of criteria so that the sound level of the advertising blocks does not exceed that of the programs, according to the agreement INF/DTSA/083/25 published on November 20, 2025. The regulations extend the regulation that from summer 2025 DTT governs the entire audiovisual ecosystem: video streaming platforms such as YouTube and on-demand services, music applications such as Spotify, pay television and conventional and digital radio stations. The regulator warns that non-compliance constitutes a minor infraction with penalties that can reach 200,000 euros in serious cases. The technical deception: dB vs. LUFS. The advertising industry has for decades exploited a fissure in the traditional measurement of sound. Conventional decibels record the electrical amplitude of the signal, but ignore a crucial factor: how the human brain processes that sound information. Two recordings may register identical values ​​on a traditional peak meter, and yet one is perceived as noticeably louder than the other. The secret is in the frequency composition. Our auditory system responds unevenly depending on the pitch: mid frequencies (especially between 1 and 4 kHz, where the human voice is concentrated) are much more audible to us than deep bass or extreme treble. This physiological characteristic allows advertisers to create messages that sound louder without violating technical decibel limits. The birth of the LUFS. The solution came when the International Telecommunication Union published the ITU-R BS.1770 standardadopted in August 2010 by the European Broadcasting Union. This system introduces the LUFS (Loudness Units relative to Full Scale), which integrate a weighting filter K that mathematically replicates the sensitivity of the ear. The result: a measurement that reflects actual perception, not just electrical power. Spain aligns itself with Europe. He Royal Decree 250/2025approved in March, established for the first time an objective parameter for Spanish DTT: -23.0 LUFS with a tolerance of ±1.0 LU (Loudness Unit). This figure is not arbitrary, but coincides exactly with the normalized value that the European Broadcasting Union has been recommending since 2010. The CNMC has now taken the next step and has extended these criteria beyond traditional television. Implementation. The Spanish regulator has opted for a gradual approach. The CNMC does not require platforms to reencode millions of hours of historical content immediately. The document allows operators to adopt “technical criteria that offer an equivalent level of protection”, a flexible formula that recognizes the characteristics of each medium. But implementation faces complex obstacles. While traditional television networks control every second of broadcast from a production room, the streaming It works with distributed architectures where advertising is dynamically inserted through programmatic systems. YouTube, for example, hosts content generated by millions of users with disparate equipment, from professional studios to smartphones. Technically monitoring each ad inserted in real time in this tangle becomes a considerable logistical challenge. Photo of Vadim Babenko in Unsplash / Elyas Pasban in Unsplash

Bill Gates was so obsessed with driving a Porsche 959 that he managed to change the laws that prevented him

by

Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co -founder is, in addition to one of the richest men in the worlda passionate about Supercars that Porsche manufactures. So much so that he even had to fight for more than a decade for the US government to change a law that would allow him to drive his Porsche through the streets of Seattle. Thanks to your perseverance, today Millionaires lovers of supercarlike Elon Musk or Larry Ellison, they can have their garages full of limited editing exotic hypercoches and drive them. The story of a Porsche 959 parked in customs Bill Gates is a great passionate about technology and engineering, so in 1987, he commissioned a brand new Porsche 959 that has just been presented. At that time, 959 was one of the most advanced supercarincluding one of the first biturbo engines with total traction and an electronic toe. The six -cylinder and 2.8 -liter engine of 959 delivered 450 horsepower and was able to reach 317 km/h. A prodigy of technology that the young and already millionaire Bill Gates did not resist driving. However, when his Porsche 959 arrived in the United States, he was held at Seattle Customs. The reason: the strict shock test imposed by US laws had not passed, and that prevented him from being able to circulate on public roads. The Porsche 959 was A technological revolution By the end of the 80s, a supercar that Porsche had developed with a huge expenditure that would never recover For direct sale. Due to the high cost that would add to the list of development expenses that they were not going to recover with sales, the German brand refused to perform the shock tests required by the United States. This left the Porsche 959 in anyone’s land and could not legally circulate in the country, and Porsche did not want to adapt it to comply with the regulations. Bill Gates then found an important problem, since his precious Porsche of the only 337 units were manufactured, he was CUSTOMS IN CUSTOMS of Seattle. Bill Gates’s obsession for that particular model led the millionaire to an unpublished situation that forced his brand new car to remain retained in Seattle customs for no less than 13 years. To ensure that he remained there, the millionaire paid throughout that time the $ 28 per day required by the Port Authority for keep the car parked In your deposit, adding a total of more than $ 138,000 for this concept for more than a decade. The Law “Show and Display” Bill Gates’ tenacity was essential to change this situation. Not satisfied with accepting that his car was confiscated in customs, the billionaire gathered the best lawyers and undertook a legal battle against US authorities to ensure that his Porsche 959 could legally circulate. For more than seven years, Gates pressed Washington to change the legislation and allow an exemption For importation and the use of certain rare and collectible cars that are not officially sold in the United States. In this way, the door opened to them US Millionaires and Collectors They can buy these exotic units and limited editions, although they do not meet certain legal traffic demands. Bill Gates’ perseverance was fruit and, in 1999, President Bill Clinton signed the Law “Show and Display” which allows certain historical or technologically relevant vehicles to be imported and driven under special conditions. This law only affects cars with less than 500 manufactured units and special editions, and limited its driving to no more than 2,500 miles per year (about 4,023 kilometers). These limits emphasized the orientation of the law to allow entry to collection pieces and rare units, not to regular use cars. Thanks to this law, the Porsche 959 of Gates was finally able to leave his captivity in the Customs of Seattle and circulate through the streets of the US. In Xataka | The fastest supercar of the 80s no longer beats speed records. Now height batting after falling from a truck Image | Porsche, Flickr (Government Tom Wolf)

Europe has insisted that Spain must change its laws for unfair dismissal: it is too cheap

by

It is not the first time that from Europe There is a pull of ears to the Spanish regulations that apply to those cases in which it is incurred in an inadmissible dismissal and, therefore, that companies must compensate or readmit to workers. In your opinion, the Bars that applies Spain in these cases are insufficient and workers are not protected. The European Social Rights Committee He has just answered to the complaint filed in November 2022 by CCOO. The resolution of this body is not binding or sanctioning, so it must be read more as a recommendation than as a reprimand from Europe. What has Europe said. The European Social Rights Committee, an organ dependent on the Council of Europe, considers in its resolution that “there is a violation of article 24.b of the letter”, in reference to article 24 of the European Social Charter than Spain ratified in 2021 and whose objective was to harmonize the labor legislation of the EU member countries. In this article 24, the Council of Europe recommended, “the right of dismissed workers for no valid reason (inadmissible dismissal) to adequate compensation or other appropriate reparation.” Therefore, the Council’s decision follows the path of the first resolution with which he responded to the UGT demand in 2022insisting that the dismissal compensation system is not repair. At CCOO, the Council He has spoken on the compensation of the TEMPORARY PERSONNEL OF ADMINISTRATIONS in fraud of law that, as in the case of inadmissible dismissals, They are considered insufficient. On the other hand, the demand for CCOO also puts the focus on which Spanish legislation does not offer sufficient guarantees so that employees dismissed in the improper way must be readmitted in your position. The EU establishes that this is a point that Spain must reinforce in its labor regulations. Why are compensation insufficient? The Committee considers to establish A universal scale Like the one applied in Spain, with fixed compensation of 33 days per year worked with a maximum of 24 monthly payments, it does not serve to “repair the damage suffered by the victim in all cases and be deterrent to the employer.” In its resolution it is explained that in the calculation of these compensation the specific circumstances of each case are not taken into account (a dismissal is not the same to a 60 -year -old person than someone of 20 years, members of a single -parent family, etc.). In the brief, it is considered that a fixed allocation system allows companies calculate the convenience of dismissalthus eliminating the deterrence for the employer when the dismissal is not done due to justified objective causes, and is unfair for workers with Minor contracts. In addition, the little weight of the readmission and the fact that this is an option that is only offered to companies, and not to the employee who has lost its job for no justified reason. What do they say in Spain? In a Union statementUnai Sordo, general secretary of CCOO, insisted that this writing “what is at stake is the compatibility of the dismissal model in Spain with the European Social Charter. From now on there are only two paths: not do anything and let the jurisprudence resolve case by case, or open a tripartite, mature and responsible negotiation, that adapts our dismissal regime to the European social standards.” For its part, Yolanda Díaz has shared From your profile In Bluesky your disposition “to open social dialogue table” to adapt legislation on dismissal in Spain and comply with what is recorded by Spain. “The inadmissible dismissal has to comply with the European Social Charter. Without excuses. It is in the Government Agreement and will be a reality,” said the head of the Ministry of Labor. It should be remembered that, in a parliamentary response of 2024, the current government assured that Article 56 of the Workers’ Statute “It is already consistent with article 24 of the European Social Charter, providing adequate reparation to dismissed workers without valid reason (inadmissible dismissal), so a modification of the regulation in this regard is not expected and, therefore, particular effects on vulnerable groups or on small and medium enterprises are not estimated.” How is it being managed now. At present, if an employee considers that his dismissal is inadmissible he must go to the judicial means, and it will be the court who establishes the regulations to be applied. In this context, employees cannot claim Additional compensation to the one already marked by the legislation in relation to the years worked, as CCOO denounces in its demand and supports article 24 of the European Social Charter. On very few occasions, the courts have preferred to opt for the prerogative of admitting international legislation over the state, so it is expected that, as of July 16, the Supreme Court will rule on this situation and establish a doctrine. Until now, the High Court considered that it was not possible increase this compensation by judicial means. In addition, although it is true that the courts always offer readmission alternatives or Payment of the assigned compensationthis decision remains in the hands of the company, which in the vast majority of cases chooses to pay compensation. What the Council recommends in this case is that the election falls on the employee and choose if you want to return to an employee from which it has been fired without objective reasons. In Xataka | 55,245 euros for eating a sandwich and a beer: Mercadona must compensate an employee for unfair dismissal Image | Unspash (Antoine Schibler, Manuel)

The extreme temperature in which the laws of physics we know stop operating

by

The absolute zero marks the minimum temperature at which something can be found and corresponds to -273.15º Celsius, or 0 Kelvin. Since heat is nothing other than movement, this temperature marks the total stillness, but what happens at the opposite end? Planck temperature. Although we are less familiar with the other extreme, Planck’s temperature, or the “absolute heat”, Another concept managed by contemporary physics. Here we might make emphasis on” contemporary physics “since, at this temperature, what we know of physics stops operating, which leaves us in an unknown terrain. How much heat are we talking about? Well around 142 quintillones Kelvin (K). Or what is the same, 1.42 · 10^32 degrees Celsius: the 273 degrees of difference between both scales are inconsequential on this scale. As a comparison, we can point out that the estimated temperature of the core of our sun is about 15 million Kelvinalthough the remnant nuclei of some supernovas can reach the billion degrees. Here on Earth, science has achieved even higher temperatures: More than 5 billion Kelvin in an experiment conducted in 2012 in the Great Hadron Colliding (LHC) of CERN. Defining the maximum. We indicated before the absolute zero in temperature was marked by the lack of movement, the absence of thermal energy. The temperature is an energy transfer measure, if something has no energy, It cannot transmit it. However, to find absolute heat we must go beyond thermodynamics and incorporate another area, that of quantum physics. To understand this limit, we must know that heat is associated with emissions in the electromagnetic spectrum. At more heat, more energy, shorter will be the frequency in this spectrum. Well, this spectrum is not infinite since the known universe has its own minimum distance, Planck’s distance. This minimum length Mark too The shortest wavelength and the maximum energy that we can introduce into a photon. It is therefore impossible to transfer more thermal energy. A rather theoretical idea. Planck’s temperature remains, as we pointed out before, far from both what we can see in the universe and what we are able to recreate in a laboratory. There was a time when it may not be so, since in the first moments after the Big BangThe universe would have reached this type of temperatures. But precisely the Big Bang It is one of those contexts in which the laws of physics as we understand them are not applicable. Beyond contemporary physics. The Big Bang is a clear example that there is physics that still escapes us, as are black holes. In both cases these are contexts so extreme that the description of what happens in them through the laws of physics we handle makes it impossible. However, we continue in the search for knowledge about these extremes and the laws that could operate on them. Probably, the long -awaited “theory” of all that unifies what we know about relativistic gravity with quantum physics can give us important clues about this border of heat and, above all, what may be beyond this. In Xataka | What if the constants of the universe are not so constant? We have taken an important step to know. The key is on the nuclear clock Image | NASA’S GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER/CI LAB

The AI ​​industry is only sustainable violating Copyright laws. So you are trying to eradicate them

by

Last Saturday Jack DORSEY, Twitter co -founder (now X) and Square (now Block), published a message in x With a overwhelming phrase: “Eliminate all intellectual property laws.” Elon Musk would answer shortly after adding to the idea with a “I agree.” The message has unleashed a debate on intellectual property laws, and does so at a particularly unique time. AFFORE Copyright. Jack DORSEY’s proposal is just the last of the movements in that same direction. Some companies and technology personalities in the United States are asking that the country discarding laws related to intellectual property, something that would be fantastic for those who have trained AI models with works protected by intellectual property. Demands everywhere. Comments arrive in fact just at a time when AI companies They do not stop being sued for copyright rape. The origin of these legal cases is always the same: these companies have been accused of training their models with works and contents Protected by copyright. “Fair use”. Goal, which downloaded More than 80 TB of bookssome of them protected by the laws of Copyright and intellectual property, recently participated in a trial for an older demand For this same subject. Your lawyers They assured that the company did not violate the laws of Copyright, and that they had made A “fair use” Of those books to be able to develop their AI model, call. OpenAi already asked for a white letter. The company led by Sam Altman is one of the most affected by these demands. In a proposal published just a month ago Openai requested that the laws of Copyright in the US be eradicated with the objective of “preserving the ability of American models to learn from materials with copyright.” For Altman, the training of AI models should be free of possible demands for copyright rape, and the same now express Dorsy and Musk. And Google also bothers the copyright. Google has also been accused of using content protected by copyright to train its AI models. In A statement last March the company requested “balanced copyright rules” and explicitly appointed “fair use and text mining and data” as exceptions for these laws. Justice is barely pronounced. The truth is that demands on copyright violation by AI models They started arriving Shortly after the launch of Chatgpt, but at the moment there have been few judicial sentences. Those that have, by the way, have been small victories for IA companies. And they continue, and continue. And the situation does not help control this legal collapse in which the world of AI is located. There have been no punishments or consequences for companies, which at most have been protected by reaching agreements with some editorial groups either Content platforms. However, the implications of these violations are clear for artists in all kinds of disciplines and content creators, who see how their works are used without consent –and without compensation– For something they can’t control while the world seems to turn a blind eye. In Xataka | 5,000 “tokens” of my blog are being used to train an AI. I have not given my permission

To win the AI ​​race, OpenAi wants the US to forget about laws. Specifically, those of Copyright

by

OpenAi is immersed in one demand seriesand all of them for the same thing: the alleged violations of the copyright that he has committed when training his AI models. Now a unique idea has occurred to get rid of all those problems. No copyright for AI. In one Proposal published by OpenAIThe company suggests the US government to consider a “copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and that “preserves the ability of American models to learn from materials with copyright.” Or what is the same: that copyright laws are not applied. IA companies have done what they wanted. We have been in which the demands for copyright rape to AI companies have been frequent. Companies that develop these models have shown no shame in this regard, and The funny thing is that there is still no consequences. What OpenAi now asks is that there are definitely not and that those works can work without legal concerns. China steps on our heels. The main argument to recommend something like that is to compete with more guarantees against China. The Asian giant has demonstrated striking advances, and in fact in Openai indicate how “although America maintains its leadership in Ia today, Deepseek It shows that our leadership is not broad and is narrowing. “ Fair use. As usual, the excuse of a “fair use” of the contents with copyright appears. According to the proposal: “If the developers of the People’s Republic of China have unlimited access to US data and companies, they run out of fair use, the AI ​​race will have finished. United States loses, just as democratic AI does. Ultimately, access to more data from the widest possible range of sources will guarantee greater access to more powerful innovations that provide even more knowledge.” “AI Action Plan” in sight. In January Trump revoked The Executive Order on the Biden He had signed In October 2023. Shortly after he issued a new one And he proposed an “Action Plan” that should be ready in 180 days. Openai’s intentions are that this plan includes such concessions. But the relationship with Trump is delicate. It is true that Openai is the great fencer with softbank of the Stargate projectand that is an initiative that Trump has presumed a lot. However, the relationship of Sam Altman’s company with the current president is complex, especially since Openai is In full legal battle With Elon Musk, the main advisor Trump. White letter. In Openai they seek to have white letter to train their models with works protected by copyright. Not only that: they also want to get their tools to help modernize government agencies being approved more quickly. Experts have not been warning that a too premature adoption of these tools could have dangerous consequences, for example in terms of possible leaks and information security. OpenAi commercialized Chatgpt Gov In January precisely with the idea that government employees had access to this type of services. China’s AI models should be revealed. The company’s proposal led by Sam Altman goes further and indicates that the AI ​​models of the People’s Republic of China are prohibited. According to them, models like Depseek They are “financially supported and controlled by the State”, and pose national security risks. Companies such as Microsoft, Perplexity or Amazon stay on their servers from the Deepseek service, but the data stay on US servers, so it seems difficult for the China Government to have access to them. Image | Flikr (Techcrunch) In Xataka | 5,000 “tokens” of my blog are being used to train an AI. I have not given my permission

All the great AI have ignored the laws of Copyright. The amazing thing is that there is still no consequences

by

French publishers are fed up and They have just sued a goal by copyright violation. They are not the first nor will they be the last, but the problem is not that: the problem is that AI companies have used copyright content to train their models, and it is as if nothing happened. Everything remains the same. More years have passed since Getty will report Stable Diffusionwhich he accused of stealing his photos to train his model of image generation. That was the first of a great list of demands for exactly the same, but despite the time that has elapsed, there has been no news about it. It is as if what Stable Diffusion did – like the others – ended up in the background for the courts of justice. I copy? The suspicion about this type of behavior has been constant, and it was already before Chatgpt was launched in November 2022. Months before, in June, Dall-e was accused of based on images with the author of creators that they received nothing in return. Microsoft, Openai and Github were also sued a few weeks before the launch of Chatgpt, but this time because Github Copilot had been trained Without permission with code of various developers who had not given their permission. A Judge of California dismissed practically all claims of the plaintiffs in July 2024. Few sentences punish AI companies. For now, the sentences that have occurred, such as the aforementioned, give the apparent victory to the companies of AI. It happened for example with a lawsuit against Openai, which The company managed to win. Of course, this victory can be expensive in his other great pending demand with The New York Times, which can claim that he suffered a demonstrable damage. Fair use? The New York Times case against Openai It started in January 2025 and is undoubtedly one of the most important in this area. The company led by Sam Altman – who has used all the data that has been able– It shields what They make a “fair use” of the contents to be able to train their models. The funny thing is that on the one hand they say that, and on the other they have been reaching millionaire agreements with platforms like Reddit and means or editorials like the country precisely to license its contents and avoid new demands. Meta is another level. The ends to which companies are reaching quality data with which to train their AI models are extraordinary. Perplexity The barriers jumped From the Internet, but the goal was even more striking: we recently knew they had Used more than 80 TB of books downloaded via Bittorrent To train your model. Many of them with copyright, something that has caused many criticism and recent demand of some French editorial groups. There seem to be punishment. But as we say, that historical theft of intellectual property seems to be assumed: there are no sentences that have punished those violations of the copyright for the moment, and it is as if collectively those violations had been ignored because the AI ​​offers interesting advantages. But we are forgetting how they have obtained them … or so it seems. In Xataka | 5,000 “tokens” of my blog are being used to train an AI. I have not given my permission

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.