21–30 of 168 posts
No one owns basic shapes. You can claim ownership to the complex geometry of your work - and that’s it. The exact complexity of said geometry is impossible to define - you’ll know it when you see it.
Shapes (and colors) can be trademarked, so yes, they can.
We need an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario against AI.
> "How do I make a peach cobbler?"
"To make a peach cobbler, run your fingers aggressively over the bosom of the graham cracker crust...thrust the pie pan deep into the oven; don't worry about spilling the mix."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not writers artists or developers, it’s software that ingests data and generates an output. Anthropomorphism is going out of fashion fast.
Before we can agree on anything, we have to define what qualifies a human as any of those things. We will be here all night debating that. - "They call themselves an artist but they are not that good." - "Copying and pasting shell scripts in a terminal does not a software developer make." - "The story that writer created is yet another permutation of " You see what I mean? There is a good probability that today alone…
Thus, by his own standard, his article is not a work of intelligence, but theft.
We need an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario against AI.
Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pie…
The second is if you include all of her works but also throw in every other book written in the last several years and ask it to create a work in the style of her franchise.
Is the latter somehow "better" than the former? I'd personally consider the former to be a clear case of copyright violation while with the latter we don't really have a way of knowing how much of her previous works were included. I'd still lean towards the latter being a copyright violation, and it's where I think we are currently with services like ChatGPT.
Most of us would agree that duplicating and selling someone's book is immoral. Similarly I think we'd all agree that reading multiple books to learn about a topic and then writing your own is perfectly fine.
So where does an LLM trained on millions of books fall? Personally, I don't find it immoral but I know others will disagree. I'd be curious to hear arguments for the immorality of LLMs trained on copyrighted works.