FaceDeer

Yeah, people who can vote but don’t are implicitly voting for “whatever everyone else thinks.”

Modern LLMs are trained on highly curated and processed data, often synthetic data based off of original posts and not the posts themselves. And the trainers are well aware that there are people trying to “poison” the data in various ways. At this point it’s mainly an annoyance to other humans when people try.

Again, they are not universally enforceable. There are plenty of jurisdictions where they are not.

Which company us “the AI company?”

The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It’s by no means a universally accepted thing.

It’s funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they’ve become convinced that AI is Satan.

If it’s paywalled how did they access it?

The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn’t need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don’t automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they’re contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.

An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn’t include any identifiable pieces of the training data.

So charge them an appropriate price for the scarce resource they’re using.

A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that’s been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they “own” and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It’s just not so.

I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.

Streaming involves distributing copies so I don’t see why it would be. The law has been well tested in this area.

“Exploiting copyrighted content” is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.

If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can’t do is distribute copies of it.

The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it’s something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.

A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn’t a generalized “you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of” law. It’s all about making and distributing copies of the data.

No, because training an AI is not “pirating.”

Breaking: Two people whose fortunes depend on the existing world order urge lawmakers to ban something new that could disrupt that order.

Well, go down that chain, then. Haven’t they been going on for generations about how their second amendment is for exactly this situation?

Solving the underlying issues are important too, of course, but that’s a long term solution. I’d like to see a short-term patch be applied before America literally launches wars of conquest against its neighbours.

If she linked getting rid of daylight savings time with separatism I would be seriously conflicted when casting my ballot.

The opinion polls for Brexit were a lot closer to 50/50 than Alberta separatism is.

Part of me wants to get it over with so we can answer the referendum with 95% telling her to go swivel, and hopefully put this nonsense to bed once and for all.

The other part of me dreads what shenanigans she’d get up to trying to distort that number.

But you’re claiming that this knowledge cannot possibly be used to make a work that infringes on the original.

I am not. The only thing I’ve been claiming is that AI training is not copyright violation, and the AI model itself is not copyright violation.

As an analogy, you can use Photoshop to draw a picture of Mario. That does not mean that Photoshop is violating copyright by existing, and Adobe is not violating copyright by having created Photoshop.

You claimed that AI training is not even in the domain of copyright, which is different from something that is possibly in that domain, but is ruled to not be infringing.

I have no idea what this means.

I’m saying that the act of training an AI does not perform any actions that are within the realm of the actions that copyright could actually say anything about. It’s like if there’s a law against walking your dog without a leash, and someone asks “but does it cover aircraft pilots’ licenses?” No, it doesn’t, because there’s absolutely no commonality between the two subjects. It’s nonsensical.

Honestly, none of your responses have actually supported your initial position.

I’m pretty sure you’re misinterpreting my position.

The “copyright situation” regarding an actual literal picture of Mario doesn’t need to be fixed because it’s already quite clear. There’s nothing that needs to change to make an AI-generated image of Mario count as a copyright violation, that’s what the law already says and AI’s involvement is irrelevant.

When people talk about needing to “change copyright” they’re talking about making something that wasn’t illegal previously into something that is illegal after the change. That’s presumably the act of training or running an AI model. What else could they be talking about?

The parents weren’t paying attention to their obviously disturbed kid and they left a gun lying around for him to find. But sure, it was the chatbot that was the problem. Everything would have been perfectly fine forever without it.