zlacker

>>panark+(OP)
I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better". To every artist or engineer out there who contributed to the general knowledge: you lost, everything you've ever done to help other people is now part of the models and there's nothing you can do to take it back. What even happened to the copyright strikes artists were supposed to bring up against these AI companies? That seems like 100 years ago :)

>>s1k3s+O2
There's currently like 10 lawsuits against generative AI companies that are working through the courts including the one from Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, one from Getty Images, one from the Author's Guild, and one from the New York Times. It should be shocking to nobody that lawsuits take time to litigate, and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.

>>__loam+27
> and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.

My understanding of western law is that things are ok unless law forbids it. So they are operating in an area that under _current_ laws is ok but because of what may be at stake many wish the current laws were different and are willing to use litigation and lobby efforts to that end.

This is NOT IN REPLY TO YOU but a general observation: Imagine the litigation that will happen when brain implants enable brain to brain sharing sensations and thoughts. Imagine the horrible copyright abuse! How will the publishing industry and sports industry and Hollywood control the rampart piracy?!?

>>czl+lk
Why are we imagining a hypothetical situation in the context of talking about things that are currently happening? It's an interesting thought experiment but it's kind of irrelevant because brain implants are nowhere near that level and as far as I know, freedom of thought is already part of western law. I am not a lawyer though, I just think we can think about the actual damages to real people rather than make shit up.

>>__loam+EC
I put the "NOT IN REPLY TO YOU" since I meant that as a thought experiment of a possible future that where a similar situation may arise. Notice it is not freedom of thought that is in question. What is in question is freedom to share your sensations with others. You are watching a live football game and you share the sensations (what you see / hear / smell) with friends and family who are not there, etc. add to this technology that enables perfect memory of you sensations and instantly sharing them. In that possible future many will litigate and complain that their copyright and broadcast rights are being violated and they must be compensated much like what is happening with generative AI today. Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc. Gpt4o is a bunch of matrix math being done on high purity ore and refined sand powered by the sun / wind / splitting atoms / ... A century back few would believe it. Even a decade back, any predictions about a real AI like gpt4o working in just a decade, would you believe such predictions?

>>czl+uM
> Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc.

Well, "moon visits" are well on their way to being SF again. Or old fairy tales. :-(