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.

I take it you're not a (voice) actor then. Can you see why it might be an issue for someone who is?

Upvoted because this article was an interesting read.

This actual data is not necessarily representative of the entire situation

You keep saying that, but never back it up with any reason.

Everyone here agrees the data is incomplete, but that it's the best data we have. Only you keep implying that it's incorrect because [ever less verifiable, unspecified reasons]. Holy hypocrisy, batman.

Do you mind? We're trying to have a circlejerk here.

I'm sorry you felt the need to denounce claims in videos while openly admitting you don't even know what the claims are.

I doubt either one of you will ever hear from them. I guess they haven't even watched the video to begin with.

I didn't know those were LLMs, TIL.

You're missing the point. I'll make your example more specific.

Well when fraud/rape/murder happens we have laws. So no problems.

Those things happen. Creating a LLM based on copyrighted material without permission happens - it's not a hypothetical. But even then, giving a punishment after the fact does not make the initial crime "no problem", as you put it.

I don't think anyone is faulting the machines for this, just the people who instruct the machines to do it.

Would you be okay with applying that argument for any crime?

Bingo.

Using it to (create a tool to) create derivatives of the work on a massive scale.

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