None of the above. Every professional in the world, including me, owes our careers to looking at examples of other people's work and incorporating their work into our own work without paying a penny for it. Freely copying and imitating what we see around us has been a human norm for thousands of years - in a process known as "the spread of civilization". Relatively recently it was demonized - for purely business reasons, not moral ones - by people who got rich selling copies of other people's work and paying them a pittance known as a "royalty". That little piece of bait on the hook has convinced a lot of people to put a black hat on behavior that had been considered normal forever. If angry modern enlightened justice warriors want to treat a business concept like a moral principle and get all sweaty about it, that's fine with me, but I'm more of a traditionalist in that area.

Because it is harmful to the creators that use the value of their work to make a living.

There already exists a choice in the marketplace: creators can attach a permissive license to their work if they want to. Some do, but many do not. Why do you suppose that is?

Well, copyright law is kind of a bit older. When it was written, there was no AI. So it doesn't address our current issues. It's utterly unprepared for it. So people need to shoehorn things in, interpret and stretch it... Obviously that comes with a lot of issues, loopholes and shortcomings.

But I can't follow your argumentation. Why would they get away with this forever? When the car was invented, we also made up rules for cars, because the old ones for horses didn't help any more. That's how law is supposed to work... Problems surface, laws get passed to address them. That's daily business for governments.

And they don't even get away with stealing this time. That's what the article says.

If you want to share a pessimistic perspective about governments and mega-corporations, I'm all with you. That's very problematic. But some regions are better than others. Europe for example had a few clever ideas about what needs to be addressed. It's not perfect, though. And copyright still isn't solved anywhere. At least not to my knowledge.

I see this exact mental non-process in so much social media. I think the endless firehose of memes and headlines is training people to glance at an item, spend minimal brain power processing it and forming a binary opinion, then up/downvote and scroll on. When that becomes people's default mental process, you've got Idiocracy, and that's what we've got. But I see no solution. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it spend more than two seconds before screaming at the water and calling it EVIL.

1. .mobi sucks
2. koreader doesn't

Omg are you an llm?

I'm picking up what you're throwing down but using as an example something that's been in the public domain for centuries was kind of silly in a teehee way.

Your honor I work 70 hours a week in retail I don't have time to watch movies.

Oh man...

That is the point, to show how AI image generators easily fail to produce something that rarely occurs out there in reality (i.e. is absent from training data), even though intuitively (from the viewpoint of human intelligence) it seems like it should be trivial to portray.

Large AI companies themselves want people to be ignorant of how AI works, though. They want uncritical acceptance of the tech as they force it everywhere, creating a radical counterreaction from people. The reaction might be uncritical too, I'd prefer to say it's merely unjustified in specific cases or overly emotional, but it doesn't come from nowhere or from sheer stupidity. We have been hearing about people treating their chatbots as sentient beings since like 2022 (remember that guy from Google?), bombarded with doomer (or, from AI companies' point of view, very desirable) projections about AI replacing most jobs and wreaking havoc on world economy - how are ordinary people supposed to remain calm and balanced when hearing such stuff all the time?

The language model isn’t teaching anything it is changing the wording of something and spitting it back out. And in some cases, not changing the wording at all, just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source.

You could honestly say the same about most "teaching" that a student without a real comprehension of the subject does for another student. But ultimately, that's beside the point. Because changing the wording, structure, and presentation is all that is necessary to avoid copyright violation. You cannot copyright the information. Only a specific expression of it.

There's no special exception for AI here. That's how copyright works for you, me, the student, and the AI. And if you're hoping that copyright is going to save you from the outcomes you're worried about, it won't.

Good luck breaking down people's doors for scanning their own physical books for their personal use when analog media has no DRM and can't phone home, and paper books are an analog medium.

That would be like kicking down people's doors for needle-dropping their LPs to FLAC for their own use and to preserve the physical records as vinyl wears down every time it's played back.

That's a reasonable critique.

The point is that it's trivial to come up with new words. Put that same prompt into a bunch of different LLMs and you'll get a bunch of different words. Some of them may exist somewhere that don't exist. There are simple rules for combining words that are so simple that children play them as games.

The LLM doesn't actually even recognize "words" it recognizes tokens which are typically parts of words. It usually avoids random combinations of those but you can easily get it to do so, if you want.

A court will decide such cases. Most AI models aren't trained for this purpose of whitewashing content even if some people would imply that's all they do, but if you decided to actually train a model for this explicit purpose you would most likely not get away with it if someone dragged you in front of a court for it.

It's a similar defense that some file hosting websites had against hosting and distributing copyrighted content (Eg. MEGA), but in such cases it was very clear to what their real goals were (especially in court), and at the same time it did not kill all file sharing websites, because not all of them were built with the intention to distribute illegal material with under the guise of legitimate operation.

This so very much. I've been saying it since 2020. People who think the big corporations (even the ones that use AI), aren't playing both sides of this issue from the very beginning just aren't paying attention.

It's in their interest to have those positive to AI defend them by association by energizing those negative to AI to take on an "us vs them" mentality, and the other way around as well. It's the classic divide and conquer.

Because if people refuse to talk to each other about it in good faith, and refuse to treat each other with respect, learn where they're coming from or why they hold such opinions, you can keep them fighting amongst themselves, instead of banding together and demanding realistic, and fair policies in regards to AI. This is why bad faith arguments and positions must be shot down on both the side you agree with and the one you disagree with.

I've hand calculated forward propagation (neural networks). AI does not learn, its statically optimized. AI "learning" is curve fitting. Human learning requires understanding, which AI is not capable of.

Google search results aren't deterministic but I wouldn't say it "learns" like a person. Algorithms with pattern detection isn't the same as human learning.

You may be correct but we don't really know how humans learn.

There's a ton of research on it and a lot of theories but no clear answers.
There's general agreement that the brain is a bunch of neurons; there are no convincing ideas on how consciousness arises from that mass of neurons.
The brain also has a bunch of chemicals that affect neural processing; there are no convincing ideas on how that gets you consciousness either.

We modeled perceptrons after neurons and we've been working to make them more like neurons. They don't have any obvious capabilities that perceptrons don't have.

That's the big problem with any claim that "AI doesn't do X like a person"; since we don't know how people do it we can neither verify nor refute that claim.

There's more to AI than just being non-deterministic. Anything that's too deterministic definitely isn't an intelligence though; natural or artificial. Video compression algorithms are definitely very far removed from AI.

Hehe jailbreak an Android OS. You mean “rooting”.

Judge,I'm pirating them to train ai not to consume for my own personal use.