211–220 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The very fact that you can bring this tired retort to any argument regardless of context reveals it for what it is: an off ramp to any conversation you have no better argument against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the concept of owning an idea is really gross. Copyright means I can’t write about whatever I want in my own home even if I never distribute it or no one ever sees it. I’m breaking the law by privately writing Harry Potter fanfic in my journal or whatever. Copyright is supposed to be about encouraging intangibles, and the reality is that it only massively stifles it
I don’t believe this is true? I’m pretty sure that you’re prohibited from making money from that fan fiction, not from writing it at all. So I don’t understand the claim that copyright “massively stifles” creativity. There are of course examples of people not being able to make money on specific “ideas” because of copyright laws, but that doesn’t seem to me to be “massively stifling” creativity itself, especially giv…
> If we allow AI companies to train LLMs on copyrighted works without paying for that access, we are choosing to reward these companies instead of the humans who created the data upon which these companies are utterly reliant for said LLMs.
It's interesting how much parallel there is here to the idea that company owners reap the rewards of their employee's labor when doing no additional work themselves. The fruits of labors should go to the individuals who labor, I 100% agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. You're still not gonna be allowed to commercially publish "Hairy Plotter and the Philosophizer's Rock".
No, but you are most likely allowed to commercially publish "Hairy Potter and the Philosophizer's Rock", a story about a prehistoric community. The hero is literally a hairy potter who steals a rock from a lazy deadbeat dude who is pestering the rest of the group with his weird ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism. If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright. Only large corporations get away with it.
Is reading and memorizing a copyrighted text a breach of copyright? I.e. is creating a copy of the text in your mind a breach of copyright or fair fair use? Is it a breach of copyright if a digital “mind” similarly memorizes copyrighted text? Or is it only a breach of copyright to output and publish that memorized text? What about loosely memorizing the gist of a copyrighted text. Is that a breach or fair use? What i…
Those who were immune were put under the scalpel."
I have yet to see someone explain in detail how transformer model training works (showing they understand the technical nitty gritty and the overall architecture of transformers) and also layout a case for why it is clearly a violation of copyright. You can find lots of people talking about training, and you can find lots (way more) of people talking about AI training being a violation of copyright, but you can't fin…
They never said model training is a violation of copyright. The ruling says model training on copyrighted material for analysis and research is NOT copyright infringement, but the commercial use of the resulting model is: "When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research… the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrig…
There are college kids with bigger "copyright collections" than that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The very fact that you can bring this tired retort to any argument regardless of context reveals it for what it is: an off ramp to any conversation you have no better argument against.
If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If AI is so important, maybe it should be owned by the government and free to use for all citizens.
Name two non-military things that the government owns and aren't complete dumpster fires that barely do the thing they're supposed to do. Even (especially?) the military is a dumpster fire but it's at least very good at doing what it exists to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I don't understand how people jump to "Copyright Violation" for the fact of reading. The article specificaly talks about the creation and distribution of a work. Creation and distribution of a work alone is not a copyright violation. However, if you take in input from something you don't own, and genAI outputs something, it could be considered a copyright violation. Let's make this clear; genAI is not a copyrig…
> Let's make this clear; genAI is not a copyright issue by itself. However, gen AI becomes an issue when you are using as your source stuff you don't have the copyright or license to. So context here is important. If you see people jumping to copyright violation, it's not out of reading alone. My proposal is that it's a luddish kneejerk reaction to things people don't understand and don't like. They sense and fear ch…
Your proposal is moving goal posts.
> Allow me to update your sentence: "Every paper every scientist or academic wrote that references any copyrighted work becomes an issue".
No, I never said that. Fair Use exists.
> Fan fiction is legal if you're not trying to profit from it.
No, it's not.[1] You can make arguments that it should be, but, no.
[1] https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/is-fanfiction-legal/
> I think you're missing my point
I think you got called out, and you are now trying to reframe your original comment so it comes across as having accounted for the things you were called out on.
You think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. But, you rely on the fact that you think you do to lose the money you do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pirating movies is also useful, because I can watch movies without paying on devices that apps and accounts don't work on. That doesn't make piracy legal, even though I get a lot of use out of it. Also, a person isn't a computer so the "but I can read a book and get inspired" argument is complete nonsense.
It's only complete non-sense if you understand how humans learn. Which we don't. What we do know though is that LLMs, similar to humans, do not directly copy information into their "storage". LLMs, like humans, are pretty lossy with their recall. Compare this to something like a search indexed database, where the recall of information given to it is perfect.