91–100 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shapes (and colors) can be trademarked, so yes, they can.
That's only in a specific domain and for consumer protection (to avoid confusion), not in the sense of copyright
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Russian book series is a direct knock-off. Even the font looks similar. It’s also not a copyright violation because the question of how similar it is to the idea of Harry Potter is irrelevant with regards to copyright. If it was too similar and it was actively confusing consumers then it would be an issue of trademark. By making the protagonist a girl without glasses it does enough to differentiate itself that n…
Except the book you’re referring to was infringing. “Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.
That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
Ok I support anti corporation but then how do talented artists make money? I don’t get this mentality and how it’s always taken to the extreme. Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?
But in all seriousness, speaking as someone who uses adblock and watches youtube, I support creators by subscribing to their Patreon or Substack. And I support musical artists by going to their concerts. But the point is that it's opt-in. Beyond this, I don't feel any sort of obligation to submit myself to psychological manipulation of an advertising system I didn't consent to joining.
Something that’s lost in these arguments a lot is that you can often get large models to cough up an exact sample from their training set. It’s fair to say that a human cannot do that to the degree a model can.
We need an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario against AI.
I was thinking about this. Depending on how they "crawl" content, figure out a way to fingerprint their crawlers and when they hit your site, just return disgustingly explicit romance novel copy. > "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."
I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.
I feel obligated to point out that many words in English have more than one meaning. "Theft" is the action of "stealing", and "steal" is one of those words with many meanings. We can "steal" identities, "steal" bases in baseball, an actor can "steal" the show, a team can with an improbable last minute play can "steal" a game, we can have our hearts "stolen" by a cute kitten, and so on.
The argument (which, i don't buy) is that the training data set is deriving benefit without paying money back to the original creator of the data.
But the only change now is speed - after all, education has always been possible from said data from the internet, free of royalties. These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only in a specific domain and for consumer protection (to avoid confusion), not in the sense of copyright
I'm having a good time imagining a bottle that is in the shape of a continuous, right angled rectangular solid (a 3d representation of the outline of a square) with a spout hidden in a corner and how the design patent application would go.
These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.
Well a big difference is you cannot have a single human consume and remember everything ever written. Another big difference is that that human cannot be scaled so that it can chat with millions of people at the same time. Concentrating all knowledge into a single entity controlled by a for profit corporation using opaque methods will have consequences. Doesn't really matter if it's a biological or digital entity.
The other is industrial strip-mining of all information in the world for the benefit of a corporation and bulk de-valuing of human creation and contributions in the process. "Take all you can give nothing back".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its similar to many other dilemmas with new tech. When you are out in public, you don't have an expectation of privacy. People can see you, they can take photos of you. The worker at the cafe will probably remember you and your order. This is fine. But when tech does the exact same thing but with scale where everywhere you go, everything you buy, etc is tracked and analyzed, it's now questionably immoral despite lega…
I like this example and I'd agree that tracking people at scale can be immoral depending on the circumstances. But to me it feels that way because something is being taken from you. You've lost your agency to be anonymous or to leave your past behind. But I don't see how an LLM training on your works deprives you of something you had before.
it does in some sense - your exclusive knowledge of the subject matter is now transferrable via LLM or some sort of ai model.
For a human to achieve the same, they would've needed to undertake similar amounts of training, effort and dedication as you had. The number of people who would do such is currently small.
So realistically, your value as someone who has this unique expert subject knowledge is diminished.
However, these individual losses are offset by the greater good that the LLM/ai models would generate. It is exactly equivalent to the luddite's arguments about why they would not want the textile machines to replace them.