JAlexoid

Currently it's mostly to pay for running and training the models.

You should realize that this is happening not only in the space of images(where conglomerates aren't a thing), but also in music.

Music conglomerates have money and their lawsuits will probably settle the issue.(unless they settle) That will be applied for all copyrighted works, regardless of the medium.

I believe going against the big guys is the reason why the big ones don't yet have music generation LLMs.

Most people can't even imagine the complexity it would require to actually build a system that correctly tracks down the sources for image generation. Not to mention that each image is generated from literally every single training image in a very small percentage.

It's not hard when someone inputs "create in style of studio ghibli" to say that studio Ghibli should get a cut. It's very different when you don't specify the source for the origin style.

And if you tried to identify the source material owner, the percentage of the output image that their work contributed to would be extremely - if not infinitely - small. You'd get minuscule payouts.

As an artist your license didn't ban learning from your work. Unless your content was acquired without a license at all - you absolutely gave them permission to use it in training sets.

That is the gap in the legal landscape.

But original artists being rent-seekers is OK, right?

PS: I categorically disagree that AI developers are rent-seekers, unless they require rent for the products their models generate

The "funny" thing is that we absolutely allow people to copy style... but somehow software isn't allowed to do that?

You don't even need to have a legally acquired source material to produce work in a certain style.

The new reality allows for original creators to actually track the chain, so we're in this situation.

> I'm fairly certain that "style" is not something protected by Copyright

To a degree it is protected, but not by copyright. Design patents are a thing and companies have sued each other over them (Apple vs Samsung during the "smartphone wars" comes to mind)

There are literally users here that say that it works.

And you presume that the code hasn't been read or understood by a human. AI doesn't click merge on a PR, so it's highly likely that the code has been read by a human.

I think you need to first understand what the word intuition means, before writing such a condescending reply.

Try it out. Ask "Do you know who Emplabert Kloopermberg is?" and ChatGPT/Gemini literally responded with "I don't know".

You, on the other hand, truly have never encountered any information about Thai grammar or (surprisingly) hot to build a jet turbine. (I can explain in general terms how to build one from just watching Discovery channel)

The difference is that the models actually have some information on those topics.

> I also believe that using GraphQL without a compiler like Relay or some query/schema generation tooling is an anti-pattern. If you're not going to use a compiler/query generation tool, you probably won't get much out of GraphQL either.

How is this easier or faster than writing a few lines of code at BFF?

Expecting GraphQL to handle security is really one of the poorest ways of doing security, as GQL is not designed to do that.

I would like to remind you that in most cases the GQL is not colocated on the same hardware as the services it queries.

Therefore requests between GQL and downstream services are travelling "over the wire" (though I don't see it as an issue)

Having REST apis that return only "fat" objects is really not the most secure way of designing APIs

AI assisted, not necessarily generated.

And yes, current models are amazing at reducing time it takes to push out a feature or fix a bug. I wouldn't even consider working at a company that banned use of AI to help me write code.

PS: It's also irrelevant to whether it's AI generated or not, what matters is if it works and is secure.

You still require gql requests to deal with. There's pretty much the same amount of code to build in BFF as it is to build the same in GQL... and probably less code on the frontend.

The value of GQL is pretty much equivalent to SOA orchestration - great in theory, just gets in the way in practice.

Oh and not to mention that GQL will inadvertently hide away bad API design(ex. lack of pagination).. until you are left questioning why your app with 10k records in total is slow AF.

Have you ever heard of Dunning Kruger effect?

There's a reason why there are upvotes, solution and third party edit system in StackOverflow - people will spend time to write their "hallucinations" very confidently.

g(lower case) is literally gravitational force of Earth at surface level. It's universally true, as there's only one Earth in this universe.

G is the gravitational constant which is also universally true(erm... to the best of our knowledge), g is calculated using gravitational constant.

Newer models can run a search and summarize the pages. They're becoming just a faster way of doing research, but they're still not as good as humans.

Is intuition really that different than LLM having little knowledge about something? It's just responding with the most likely sequence of tokens using the most adjacent information to the topic... just like your intuition.

I mean... That is exactly how our memory works. So in a sense, the factually incorrect information coming from LLM is as reliable as someone telling you things from memory.

Most of the development costs are recouped through licenses on the base-stations and somewhat on the very low patent licenses per chip/device, not the price of access to the standard.

Back to the the HDMI standard, the licensing fee has already been paid by the hardware manufacturer. Restricting software is unnecessary, as the patent license fees have already been collected on the device.

Or... You know... We also like watching one giant corporation that benefits from distinctly authoritarian policies get wrecked by another authoritarian entity to the benefit of better competition in the market.

But apparently unless you're a suckup to the authoritarian entity that you like is now a LINO.

You are allowed to splice it up, when you have a legally acquired personal copy.

But in this case you don't have one in the first place.

Still not a new distribution.

I hate to break it to you, but you're not doing any of that.

You seem like you have a robin hood complex or something similar.

Are you going to lie that you didn't know that the videos are shown to you in exchange for ads?

Entering into a contract doesn't necessarily require you to sign a document. Quite a few contracts that we make every day require no formal acceptance, like entering a shop.

I don't even see any shorts, unless I click the shorts tab on the web.

In the Android app it's literally just one line, which I have to scroll down to... like two pages.

And I pay for Premium, because each premium view is more valuable to the creators than the ad supported one.

Most of the ad revenue actually goes to the people uploading content.

But sure... they're all clearly are "trillion-dollar analytics empire"

> I've already archived all the videos I care about

That's quite literally what we call piracy.