Ok, where did GPT-4 copy the ransomware code? You can’t reshuffle lines of code much before the program breaks. Should be easy to find.

Well, that’s simply not true.

Well, that is a philosophical or religious argument. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the claim that evolution can’t add information. That can’t be the basis for law.

In any case, it doesn’t matter to copyright law as is, that you see it that way. The AI is the equivalent to that book on how to write bestsellers in my earlier reply. People extract information from copyrighted works to create new works, without needing permission. A closer example are programmers, who look into copyrighted references while they create.

I didn’t downvote you. (Just gave you an upvote, though.) You’re reasonable and polite, so a downvote would be very inappropriate. Sorry for that.

Music is having ongoing problems with copyright litigation, like Ed Sheeran most recently. From what I have read, it’s blamed on juries without the necessary musical background. As far as I know, higher courts usually strike down these cases, as with Sheeran. Hip hop was neutered, in a blow to (African-)American culture. While it was obviously wrong, not to find for fair use in that case, samples are copies.

It’s not so bad outside of music. You can write books on “how to write a bestseller”, or “how to draw comics” without needing permission. Of course, you would study many novels and images to get material. The purpose of books is that we learn from them. That we go on to use this to make our own thing is intended (in the US).

What you’re proposing there would be a great change to copyright law and probably disastrous. Even if one could limit the immediate effect to new technologies, it would severely limit authors in adopting these technologies.

Yes, if it’s new content, it’s obviously no copy; so no copyvio (unless derivative, like fan fiction, etc.). I was thinking of memorized training data being regurgitated.

I understand. The idea would be to hold AI makers liable for contributory infringement, reminiscent of the Betamax case.

I don’t think that would work in court. The argument is much weaker here than in the Betamax case, and even then it didn’t convince. But yes, it’s prudent to get the explicit permission, just in case of a case.

That shouldn’t be an issue. If you look at an unauthorized image copy, you’re not usually on the hook (unless you are intentionally pirating). It’s unlikely that they needed to get explicit “consent” (ie license the images) in the first place.

The models are deliberately engineered to create “good” images, just like cameras get autofocus, anti-shake and stuff. There are many tools that will auto-prettify people, not so many for the reverse.

There are enough imperfect images around for the model to know what that looks like.

That ought to satisfy all those who wanted “consent” for training data.

It just seems that Google should have been able to move faster. Yes, they did publish a lot of important stuff, but seeing the splash that came from Stability and OpenAI, they seem to have done so little with it. What their researchers published was important but I can’t help thinking, that a public university would have disseminated such research more openly and widely. Well, I may be wrong. I don’t have inside knowledge.

For the fine-tuning stage at the end, where you turn it into a chatbot, you need specific training data (eg OpenOrca). People have used ChatGPT to generate such data. Come to think of it, if you use Mechanical Turk, then you almost certainly include text from ChatGPT.

Quite possible. Whatever the case, they apparently saw no pressure to innovate. It implies that tech development is being slowed down by the Big Tech monopolies.

I could download my file and be done with it.

That’s true, but that’s kinda delivering a physical copy via the net, and you pay the storage medium. I understood OP as talking specifically about online “property”.

Took em long enough.

I wonder if they used ChatGPT to create any of the training data.

If you want this to be unpopular, then you need to point out some of the implications. Lemme…

They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it.

This means, that those who think that AI training should require a license are not standing up for artists. They are shilling for intellectual property owners; for the corporations and rich people.

If it requires a license, that means that money must be paid to property owners simply because they are owners. The more someone owns, the more money they get. Rich people own the most property, so rich people get the most money.

And what do employees get? They get to pay.

But how often do you install the same game? A streaming movie needs to be (partially) downloaded every time someone watches it. But yes, I shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this ends up being a higher bandwidth cost per dollar purchasing price.

When you keep a backup, then the download was basically just a way of delivering a physical copy. I answered why we can’t have online property.

As to why many don’t allow you to keep a private copy. For the obvious reason: To maintain control over their property and monetize it to the highest degree possible.

Hah! Yeah, that’s so weird when seen from my culture (Germany). Here, prosecutors must enforce all laws on the books. Anything less would be a criminal offense. The actual day-to-day problems are very similar, though. It is kinda infuriating that the English system works as well as it does.

That takes a lot less bandwidth than streaming. All business have fixed costs. Blockbuster Video had to pay rent for physical stores, for example. Delivering via the net is relatively cheap compared to stores or physical postage. I’d be surprised if GOG’s cost aren’t much lower than anything physical.

If it doesn’t bother you that you are threatened with jail over something you might do with your own property, in your own home, without affecting others, then… Well, I can see that you would be living a very jolly life indeed. Good on ya.

IMO, we need to ask: What benefits the people? or What is in the public interest?

That should be the only thing of importance. That’s probably controversial. Some will call it socialism. It is pretty much how the US Constitution sees it, though.

Maybe you agree with this. But when you talk about “models trained on public data” you are basically thinking in terms of property rights, and not in terms of the public benefit.