admin

I think that in the end it should be a matter of licenseship (?). The author might give you the right to train a model on it, if you pay them for it. Just like you'd have get permission if you want to turn their work into a play or a show.

I don't think the argument (not yours, but often seen in discussions like these) about "humans can be inspired by a work, so a computer should be allowed to be as well" holds any ground. For it would take a human much more time to make a style their own, as well as to recreate large amounts of it. For a ai model the same is a matter of minutes and seconds, respectively. So any comparison is moot, imho.

I think we'll find our whether or not that is true will be decided in a trial like this.

And basically, I can. I can quote parts of it, I can give it to a friend to read, I can rip out a page and tape it to the wall, I can teach my kid how to read with it.

These are things you're allowed to do with your copy of the book. But you are not allowed to, for example create a copy of it and give that to a friend, create a play or a movie out of it. You don't own the story, you own a copy of it on a specific medium.

As to why it's unethical, see my comment here.

I get it. I download movies without paying for it too. It's super convenient, and much cheaper than doing it the right thing.

But I don't pretend it's ethical. And I certainly don't charge other people money to benefit from it.

Either there are plenty of people who are fine with their work being used for AI purposes (especially in a open source model), or they don't agree to it - in which case it would be unethical to do so.

Just because something is practical, doesn't mean it's right.

If, without asking for permission, 1 person used my work to learn from it and taught themself to replicate it I'd be honoured. If somebody is teaching a class full of people that, I'd have objections. So when a company is training a machine to do that very same thing, and will be able to do that thousands of time per second, again, without asking for permission first, I'd be pissed.

Because that is far harder to prove than showing OpenAI used his IP without permission.

In my opinion, it should not be allowed to train a generative model on data without permission of the rights holder. So at the very least, OpenAI should publish (references to) the training data they used so far, and probably restrict the dataset to public domain--and opt-in works for future models.

A clause of the bill allows Ofcom, the British telecom regulator, to serve a notice requiring tech companies to scan their users–all of them–for child abuse content.This would affect even messages and files that are end-to-end encrypted to protect user privacy. As enacted, the OSB allows the government to force companies to build technology that can scan regardless of encryption–in other words, build a backdoor.

Have you every looked at YouTube comments? The difference might be smaller than you think.

Faster than 1 finger swiping, yes. But not faster than I can think the words.

It's been a few years since I last read it, but from what I recall the devices themselves can be pretty much the same, but it might vary where exactly they "plug in". Also each individual user will have to learn how to use the device. That knowledge gap is supposed to decrease as the technology improves.

Initially it will be used to improve the lives of people with disabilities, but eventually it will be used for direct communication and beyond. For starters, it took me a few minutes to type out this response on my phone, being bottlenecked by my fingers and SwiftKeys insistence that I meant different words. If I could just "think" the words directly into the input ~~fortis~~ field, it would have been much faster.

Ahhh, so you were trolling then. Then I rest my case.

My bad. I assumed you were trolling. If you honestly didn't know what executioner referred to in that context, I sincerely apologise.