121–125 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stealing my time and attention. Much more bothered about advertising in my face than IP infringement.
In exchange for a service. It is the way you pay it. You can simply refuse to transact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In exchange for a service. It is the way you pay it. You can simply refuse to transact.
What service am I getting when I’ subjected to a billboard that says “get a smooth kitty” with a picture of a Sphinx cat, exactly? (It’s for laser hair removal and is clever but that makes it more annoying because my kids ask me what it means)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. You're welcome to even take the style and add enough personal creativity that it becomes a different work and sell that, but only if a random on the street doesn't look at it and say "wow, what Studio Ghibli film is that from?". That's the problem here, there's no creative input apart from the prompt,…
> I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. Technically, you can't, but there's no way to enforce copyright infringement on private work. You can paint a Studio Ghibli-style painting -- the style isn't protected. These rules assume that copying the style is labor intensive, and righteously rewards the worker. When an LLM can reproduce thousan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this. 1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use. 4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work. --- Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made fo…
This for the actual work, definitely not for transformative works like llm output. So a ghibli style image of me is fine legally, whether I sell it or not.
But even for actual works, the above is incorrect. How you use the copy absolutely matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Critiques like this dismissis AI as a bunch of multiplications, while in reality it is backed by extensive research, implementation, and data preparation. There's an enormous complexity behind, making it difficult to categorize as simply transformative or not.
The Pirate Bay is also backed by extensive research, implementation, and data preparation. I'm not dismissising [sic] anything as "a bunch of multiplications" – you'll note I talked about embedding in vector spaces, not matrix multiplication. (I do, in fact, know what I'm talking about: if you want to dismiss [sic] my criticism, please actually engage with it like the other commenters have.)