Earlier quoted context omitted.
Summarization is generally not copyright infringement. Private copying and transference, even once for a friend, is copyright infringement. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but it is true nonetheless.
"Private copying and transference, even once for a friend, is copyright infringement." Not without money or equivalent trade involved. I can draw Mickey Mouse all day on my notebook, and hand it to you; no legal issues. If I charge you a pack of bubble gum - Disney's lawyers will kick my door down and serve me notice.
An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
41–50 of 927 posts
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#42Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#43> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to I completely disagree. It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do. How anyone expected novel outputs from this technology is beyond me. It's highly noticeable if you do a minimal analysis, but all modern "AI" tools are just copyright thiefs. They're just there to whitewash aw…
> It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do That's true of all the best artists ever. > They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content. That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is a "thief". To be a thie…
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#44Unlike what they name in physics, laws in juristic field are not a given by the cosmos. That's all human fantasy, and generally not enacted by the most altruistic and benevolent wills.
Call me back when we have no more humble humans dying from cold, hunger and war, maybe I'll have some extra compassion to spend on soulless megacorps which pretend they can own the part of our brain into which they inject their propaganda and control what we are permitted to do starting from that.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#45One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad.
Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "random character" button on the physical attributes a couple times.
There was an equally shatteringly-awful less-IP-theft (and as someone who thinks IP is itself incredibly ripping off humanity & should be vastly scoped down, it's important to me to not rest my arguments on IP violations).... An equally shattering recent incident for me. Having trouble finding it, don't remember the right keywords, but an article about how AI has a "default guy" type that it uses everywhere, a super generic personage, that it would use repeatedly. It was so distasteful.
The nature of 'AI as compression', as giving you the most median answer is horrific. Maybe maybe maybe we can escape some of this trap by iterating to different permutations, by injecting deliberate exploration of the state spaces. But I still fear AI, worry horribly when anyone relies on it for decision making, as it is anti-intelligent, uncreative in extreme, requiring human ingenuity to budge off its rock of oppressive hypernormality that it regurgitates.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#46LLMs are better at generating the boilerplate of todays programming languages than they will be with tomorrows programming languages.
This is because not only will tomorrows programming languages be newer and lacking in corpus to train the models in but, by the time a corpus is built, that corpus will consist largely of LLM hallucinations that got checked into github!?
The internet that that has been trawled to train the LLMs is already largely SEO spam etc, but the internet of the future will be much more so. The loop will feed into itself and become ever worse quality.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#47Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't think it would be obvious. By not explicitly saying Indiana Jones when so obviously describing Indiana Jones, there is an implication present. But I think many human artists would probably ask you, "Wait, so Indiana Jones, or are you looking for something different," before immediately diving in.
So why didn’t the AI ask for clarification?
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just doing what many human artists would do I really don't think so. If I paid a human artist to make the prompt in the title, and I didn't explicitly say "Indiana Jones" I would think it should be fairly obvious to the human artist that I do _not_ want Indiana Jones. If they gave me back a picture of, clearly, Indiana Jones, I would ask them why they didn't create something original.
I actually don't think it would be obvious. By not explicitly saying Indiana Jones when so obviously describing Indiana Jones, there is an implication present. But I think many human artists would probably ask you, "Wait, so Indiana Jones, or are you looking for something different," before immediately diving in.
Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip
#50So, no speculation as to why Spiderman and Harry Potter were forbidden but Terminator and James Bond were allowed?