Ha. I knew there was something fishy about that. Anyway, I’m done feeding this troll. I hope he got his worth out of shilling for Altman.

Did I see a sportsball event? I can talk about it to whom I want when I want.

Sure.

Did I buy a physical book? I can take as many photos of it as I want.

Nope. You can’t, for example, take a picture of all the pages and then redistribute those.

Now answer my question if you plan to go after another Daycare, Disney. No more evasions

Only if you tell me whether or not you stopped beating your wife.

What part is confusing you exactly?

I initially thought you were ignorant of the core principle of intellectual property, but now I see you’re just wilfully delusional.

Let me get this straight - if a vengeful ex or someone else gets a hand on naked pictures of you, they can do whatever they want to them? You wouldn’t want any limits on their ability to alter them and spread them?

Yes. Your content and tech. And you even get a say in how others get to use it. Thanks to laws like these. Not to someone else’s.

So what will happen to art if we only disallow AI models from learning from copyrighted performances, whilst still allowing them to do so from public domain and licensed works (and obviously not changing anything for humans who seek inspiration)?

Quite the contrary, actually. Thanks to this law you won’t have to watermark something you own, in order to prevent companies to use it for profit.

Unless of course you have the misconception that downloading something that someone else made is the same as owning it. In which case, I understand this might be difficult for you to grasp.

Not OP, but I also don’t think it’s the same thing. But even if it were, the consequences are nowhere near the same.

A person might be able to learn to replicate an artist’s style, given enough practice and patience, but it would take them a long time, and the most “damage” they could do with that, is create new content at roughly the same rate as the original creator.

It would take an AI infinitely less time to acquire that same skill, and infinitely less time to then create that content. So given those factors, I think there’s an enormous difference between 1 person learning to copy your skill, or a company that does it as a business model.

Btw, if you didn’t know it yet - search engines don’t need to create a large language model in order to find web content. They’ve been working fine (one night even say Better) without doing that.

Exposed credentials means that somebody got sloppy the password. So yeah, “stolen creds”. Give the fact that a) NYT seems knows which credentials were exposed, and b) We haven’t seen hundreds of other high(er) profile companies have their private repos breached, it is far more likely that NYT fucked up, and not Microsoft (which is what you implied, with nothing to back it up - other than a very narrow-minded definition of the word hack).

Does that refer to Izzy, or the people who complained because they expressed their opinion?

Regardless of what tool OP ends up using, this is the most straightforward way.

Nah.

By default an AI will draw from its entire memory, and so will have lots of different influences. But by tuning your prompt (or restricting your input dataset) you can make it so specific, it’s basically creating near perfect clones. And contrary to a human, it can then produce similar works hundreds of times per minute.

But even that is beside the point. Those works were sold under the presumption that people will read them. Not to ingest them into a LLM or text-to-image model. And now, companies like openai and others profit from the models they trained without permission from the original author. That’s just wrong.

Humans with imperfect memories being influenced by a work <> AI language models being trained on a work.

Depending on the jobs, also Google, Microsoft, etc…

Why would these people blocking each other have any influence on whether you stay on or leave twitter?

Is this /c/technology or /c/circlejerk?

First off all, the components are selected for the Linux compatibility, so it’s guaranteed to work. But they also provide some tools to make sure you use the preferred drivers, a control center tool for customising fan speeds, etc. All of which are open source. They even provide the windows drivers for all configs for when you want to dusk boot (and those are even fairly up to date).

I don’t think an AI or indeed most writers could mimic anything like the frantic ad-libbing he was known and loved for.

I’m not convinced. If you trained a model on all of his performances and scripts, I think it could generate something that could fool most people. Not everything it generates would be terrific, but even if only 1% is good, you just cut out all the rest.

And that’s at the current state of tech.

deleted by creator

Bought my last few laptops from Tuxedo. Their 13" infinibook can be quite noisy, but I’m having a blast with the Polaris I bought last year.

It does reinforce Madison’s claim that they want to keep everything verbal, rather than put things on record with HR.

In the end it’s all just a linguistics game though - you’re profiting off the work somebody did, without paying the rate they charge for it.

But that’s exactly the kind of answer you’ll get in a community focused on piracy. Most people wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t already justified piracy.