Artists having been imitating the works of others for thousands of years. Why is it so controversial to have an AI do the same?
Oh, you said zero? How beguiling. Maybe there is a difference.
BTW, plenty of humans have memorized copyrighted material, such as song lyrics. Do you think that should be prohibited? Maybe the difference isn’t as great as you think.
OAI can put a dumb IP filter on ChatGPT output and resolve the case. Training plays no part here.
That regurgitation is merely evidence of those two, and so putting a filter on the output explicitly does not resolve the case.
LLM's are not data archives, I don't know how many times this has to be repeated.
> Defendants’ generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) tools rely on large-language models (“LLMs”) that were built by copying and using millions of The Times’s copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides, and more.
https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...
This case is still ongoing a year later.
NYT isn't suing because LLMs will print out NYT articles for free. They are suing because LLMs are poised to be better/more favorable news reporters than them. It's a long term survival case, not a copyright one (despite that being the weapon used in the fight)
It’s the core of it all— jealousy of a creative spirit.
Artists are not machines, but living souls.
If you were remotely open enough to see for yourself, then you wouldn’t struggle with engaging in the world in a creative manner and you wouldn’t feel that jealousy but encouragement by what you see pouring out of your fellow humans as a reflection of each other.
No machine will grant you that understanding, you just have to engage directly.
It will never succeed to supplant it, no matter the billions of dollars burned to try.
Using an AI tool to create an image of a painting betrays the person who seeks to be “artist” by short circuiting the practice that leads the prospect to their path of enlightenment through mastery.
In our constricted 3d world there is no circumstance where an algorithmically generated image of a painting will equally serve the prospective artist in its procedural work on the prospective artist, internally. There is no other pursuit in art, and any pursuant will come to that conclusion in any number of ways but always through submission to the course of mastery (for which there is no shortcut).
Worse, the companies at the helm of this side of the technology are pushing it in order to stand middle man to humankind’s modus operandi-to create.
Keep your mind open to perspectives beyond the software industry.
The status quo favors large players who can navigate the legal system.
A tax on AI is stupid because the big players can dodge taxes well and have the ear of power now, so any regulation would favor them. It would only serve to prevent challengers to their dominance.