81–90 of 125 posts
I am still torn on this issue. On the one hand, it feels like a copyright violation when other people's works are used to train an ML model. On the other hand, it is not a copyright infringement if I paint a picture in the Studio Ghibli style myself. The question is whether removing a ‘skill requirement’ for replication is sufficient grounds to determine a violation.
to paraphrase: You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television. You wouldn't steal a DVD. Downloading someone's content for AI training is stealing. Stealing is a crime. really, really happy that someone is calling out data-harvesting for what it really is.
Hah, hilarious this is being unironically used, this was a lame ad old people they put out against piracy, and widely mocked by Millenials in the early 2000s. We've have always known we should harvest the internet for absolutely everything. If we don't, it's fine, we can squabble about our IP and China will just ingest the entire Internet, make a model out of it, then release the Ghiblifier and we'll all download it…
Probably not as much a generational thing ("old people", versus "Millennials" or really, Gen X at that time), as just a tone-deaf shaming attempt by our corporate overlords.
Is it possible that the primary liability for OpenAI is trade dress? If you can produce things in (for example) the style of a Studio Ghibli film, such that an ordinary consumer can’t tell if the source is Studio Ghibli or AI, is that actionable? I feel like I see copyright concerns all the time with AI but rarely is trademark discussed.
This will be litigated and I have a feeling OpenAI/Anthropic/Claude/MistralAI will win, since we've been down similar roads before[1]. With that said, AI slop will never be a replacement for human creativity, and while AI is pretty incredible technology, I'm actually way more bullish on people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Embedding other people's work in a vector space, then sampling from the distribution at a different point in the vector space, is not a central member of the "transformative" category. The justifications for allowing transformative uses do not apply to it.
That does seem to be the plurality opinion yes. But you are responding to someone saying that what counts as transformative hasn't been decided by saying that you have decided. We don't know how human brains do it. What if we found that humans actually do it in the same way? Would that alter the dialog, or should we still give preference to humans? If we should, why should we?
Because of the scaling abilities of a human brain, you cannot plug more brains into a building to pump out massive amounts of transformative work, it requires a lot for humans to be able to do it which creates a natural limit to the scale it's possible.
Scale and degree matter even if the process is 100% analogous to how humans do it, the natural limitation for computers to do it is only compute, which requires some physical server space, and electricity, both of which can be minimised with further technological advances. This completely changes the foundation of the concept for "transformative work" which before required a human being.
to paraphrase: You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television. You wouldn't steal a DVD. Downloading someone's content for AI training is stealing. Stealing is a crime. really, really happy that someone is calling out data-harvesting for what it really is.
You wouldn't download a car.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/04/you-wouldnt-steal-a-...
The difference is: You're making copies of something:
Scenario 1: I take your baguette. Your hand is empty. You starve.
Scenario 2: I take your baguette recipe. You still have a baguette recipe. You continue to live.
Scenario 3: I take your baguette recipe and publish it. Your customers leave you. You starve.
Should we enforce the protection of people's right to have monopoly of distribution of intellectual property?
Or should we accept that in reality, copies are free and distribution monopolies only exist in inefficient markets?
It seems totally right to protect people's intellectual property.
But information wants to be free.
It's a dilemma. Do we side what feels right, or what's real?