It helps to think of fights against monsters as a turn-based encounter. As long as you can dodge or the monster misses its attack, you should be able to land a hit. If you get hit or are too far away when the monster attacks, you probably won’t be able to land any meaningful offense or heal without getting punished for it.

Is Miyazaki going to go in on his son again?

Fuck 'em. I don’t care. I hope no one uses them.

I’m not discussing the use of private data, nor was I ever. You’re presenting a false Dichotomy and trying to drag me into a completely unrelated discussion.

As for your other point. The difference between this and licensing for music samples is that the threshold for abuse is much, much lower. We’re not talking about hindering just expressive entertainment works. Research, reviews, reverse engineering, and even indexing information would be up in the air. This article by Tori Noble a Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation should explain it better than I can.

Private conversations are something entirely different from publically available data, and not really what we’re discussing here. Compensation for essentially making observations will inevitably lead to abuse of the system and deliver AI into the hands of the stupidly rich, something the world doesn’t need.

I mean realistically, we don’t have any proper rules in place. The AI companies for example just pirate everything from Anna’s Archive. And they’re rich enough to afford enough lawyers to get away with that. And that’s unlike libraries, which pay for books and DVDs in their shelves… So that’s definitely illegal by any standard.

You can make temporary copies of copyrighted materials for fair use applications. I seriously hope there isn’t a state out there that is going to pass laws that gut the core freedoms of art, research, and basic functionality of the internet and computers. If you ban temporary copies like cache, you ban the entire web and likely computers generally, but you never know these days.

Know your rights and don’t be so quick to bandwagon. Consider the motives behind what is being said, especially when it’s two entities like these battling it out.

You have to remember, AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. By setting up barriers that only benefit the ultra-wealthy, you’re handing corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep up. These companies already own huge datasets and have whatever money they need to buy more. And that’s before they bind users to predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. What some people want would mean the end of open access to competitive, corporate-independent tools and would leave us all worse off and with fewer rights than where we started.

The same people who abuse DMCA takedown requests for their chilling effects on fair use content now need your help to do the same thing to open source AI. Their next greatest foe after libraries, students, researchers, and the public domain. Don’t help them do it.

I recommend reading this article by Cory Doctorow, and this open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

He’s not trying to get copyright for something he generated, he’s trying to have the court award copyright to his AI system “DABUS”, but copyright is for humans. Humans using Gen AI are eligible for copyright according to the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.

One of the provisions of fair use is the effects on the market. If your spambot is really shitting up the place, you may very well run afoul of the doctrine.

We’re saying the same thing here. It’s just your characterization of gen AI as a “tech-enabled copying device” isn’t accurate. You should read this which breaks down how all this works.

The fair use doctrine allows you to do just that. The alternative would be someone being able to publish a book and then shutting anyone else out of publishing, discussing, or building on their ideas without them getting a kick-back.

The funny part is most of the headlines want you to believe that using things without permission is somehow against copyright. When in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich. It’s sad watching people desperately trying to become the kind of system they’re against.

I recommend reading this article by Cory Doctorow, and this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

You’re moving the goalposts. Your original reply made no mention of co-authorship by a human, it was just one sweeping statement.

AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.

But they do, explicitly:

Many popular AI platforms offer tools that encourage users to select, edit, and adapt AI- generated content in an iterative fashion. Midjourney, for instance, offers what it calls “Vary Region and Remix Prompting,” which allow users to select and regenerate regions of an image with a modified prompt. In the “Getting Started” section of its website, Midjourney provides the following images to demonstrate how these tools work.¹³⁶

Unlike prompts alone, these tools can enable the user to control the selection and placement of individual creative elements. Whether such modifications rise to the minimum standard of originality required under Feist will depend on a case-by-case determination.¹³⁸ In those cases where they do, the output should be copyrightable. Similarly, the inclusion of elements of AI-generated content in a larger human-authored work does not affect the copyrightability of the larger human-authored work as a whole.¹³⁹ For example, a film that includes AI-generated special effects or background artwork is copyrightable, even if the AI effects and artwork separately are not.

This isn’t true. You should read the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.

I see it as a time capsule, capturing a moment in time in the medium’s evolution. I mean, check out the first ever AI-generated image that sold for $432,500 USD back in 2018:

I just want to mess with this one too. I had a hard time finding an abliterated one before that didn’t fail the Tiananmen Square question regularly.

Can’t wait to try a distillation. The full model is huge.

Fuck that guy.