His point is equally valid.

but it’s irrelevant.

Can an artist be compelled to show the methods of their art? Is it as right to force an artist to give up methods if another artist thinks they are using AI to derive copyrighted work?

none of this is relevant in copyright law. the only thing that matters is who published it first and who is then using that copyrighted work for profit without first having gotten permission of the owner.

Haven’t we already seen that LLMs are really poor at evaluating whether or not something was created by an LLM?

also irrelevant

Wouldn’t making strong laws on such an already opaque and difficult-to-prove issue

laws are not written with the idea of whether on they’re hard or easy to prove as a consideration. also, your claims of such things being easy/hard to prove is a matter of opinion, and I don’t agree with you chain of deduction here. OpenAI admitted that Rowlong’s works (among many others) were used for training chatGPT.

be more of a burden on smaller artists vs. large studios with lawyers-in-tow.

also irrelevant, unless you’re arguing that, because it’s too difficult for small artists to defend their copyrighted work, they should just shut up and deal with it. currently, there is no legal precedent as to whether this is or is not copyright infringement, which is what a lawsuit like this is intended to set. For most, I would say, it Eem that it clearly is, for others, it’s not so clear.

I suppose you could say I’m making a good-faith assumption. It’s possible that he is.

my point is still valid.

that’s not exactly what’s in dispute— the prodcut that LLMs produce. That would probably be ruled as a derivative work under the DMCA’s “Fair Use” clause, and, therefore, public domain.

the issue at hand is that the company accessed the copyrighted material without paying for it and is now using that training to earn more money without fair compensation.

these language models or even proper AI can’t create original creative works the way a human can. The best it can do it create a pastiche or composition that simulates originality but is really just a jumble of recycled ideas that it’s been trained on. There’s a fair argument to be made that the owners of the copyrights of those pesos works are entitled to fair compensation, especially since AI is a tool used by a company to churn out profit off the work of others.

If you then use your brain to reproduce a product based on copyrighted work owned by Warner (without their permission) and try to sell it, then you could be in violation of the law.

the thing is: AI and your brain are very different things

Is there a direct translation for the word “fuck” in Spanish? 

I have heard this insult used in English, just not ever condensed into one single word. Bravo.

outlining his memoir, Treats: Where They Were Hidden

is this the part of our lives that AI is making easier?

No, for real. Disney makes more money from parks than they do from movies.

yes, the parks pull in big cash for Disney, but it’s what they sell there that’s the real money-maker for Disney and always has been: merchandising.

I have a brother who lives in Orlando and works for a contracting company as a civil engineer. He did some work for them maybe a decade ago and they are working on this one building in the Magic Kingdom, on Main Street near the entrance that had this huge shop in it. One of those gift shops that everyone stops at right before they leave that has souvenirs and merch from every franchise, of every character, of any damned Disney thing you can think of just so they can shake you down one last time before you leave the park for the day.

So, they’re doing some hurricane repair to the building and it’s some major work. They’ve shut down the entire building to do major structural repair, and he’s one of the engineers telling the park manager team that they need to shut the store for a day or two in order to replace some critical support something or other. Well, the Disney people weren’t having that. They made it clear that the store could not be closed, not for a day, not for an hour, not for a minute because it, by far, was the best moneymaker at any of the parks, reaping just titanic amounts of cash— far more than all the parks or hotels combined, in fact. My brother and the other engineers are trying, pleading, with the Disney guys telling them that not only may it not be possible to do it any other way than going into the store to do the work, but that if they could do it another way, it could triple the work time and budget. They didn’t care.

The Disney guys basically told the engineering team, and later the site mangers and up the chain at the contracting company, that they didn’t care how the long the project took or how much it cost or even if they had to tear down the whole structure around the store and rebuild it— they were not, under any circumstances, to disturb the smooth operation of the store one tiny bit. One single day of operation made so much money that it’s ridiculous, so the Disney people just didn’t care what had to be done to keep it open. They were like, “we’d close all three parks before we’d close that one store. Get it done.” And they did, several months and a crazy amount over budget, but Disney was happy, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

so, yeah, the parks make tons of cash, that’s true, but nothing compares to the money they make selling Disney-branded merch.

edit: spelling

old, reliable, stable SuSE. cheers! 🍻

thats how i do it