Franzia

Romantic

😳

Yo link?

Gaba degool

Thanks for this reply. You've shown this issue has depth that I've ignored because I like very few of the advocates for the AI we've got.

So one thing that trips me up is I thought copyright is about use. As a consumer rather than a creator this makes complete sense - you can read it, if you own it or borrowed it, and do not distribute it in any way. But there are also gentleman's agreements built in to how we use books and digital prints.

Unintuitively, copying is also very important. Artists copy to learn, for example. Musicians have the right to cover anyone's music. Engineers will deconstruct. and reverse engineer another's solution. And businesses cheat off of one another all the time. Even when it has been proven to be wrong, the incentive is high.

So is taking the text of the book, no matter how you got it, and using it as part of a new technology okay?

Clearly the distribution isn't wrong. You're not distributing the book, you've made a derivative.

The ownership isn't there, I mean the works were pirated. We've been taught that simply having something that was gotten through online copying is not only against the 'rightholder' but "piracy" and "stealing". I have a really simplistic view of this - I just want creators paid for their work, and have autonomy (rights) over what is done with their work. This is rarely the case, we live in a world with publishers.

So it's that first action. Is that use of the text in another work legal?

My basic understanding of fair use is that fair use is when you add to a work. You critique or reuse that work. Your work is about the other work, but also something new that stands on its own like an essay or a collage, rather than a collection.

I am so confused. Text based AI is run by capitalists. And we only have it FOSS because META can afford to lose money in order to remove OpenAI from the competition. Image based AI is almost certainly wrong, it copied and plugged in all of this other work and now tons of people are suing, Getty images is leveraging their rights management to make an AI that follows the rules we are living with. My gut reaction is a lot of people deserve royalties.

But in the other hand it sounds like AI did not work until they gave it the entire internet worth of data to train on. Training on smaller, legal sets was a failure? Or maybe it was because they took the tech approach of training the AI on every google image of dogs, or cats, etc. Without any real variation. Because they're engineers, not artists. And not even good engineers, if their best work is just scraping other people's work and giving it to this weird computer program.

This is all just stealing, right? But stealing is a lot more legal than I thought, especially when it comes to digitally published works of art, or physically published art that's popular enough to be shared online.

Like your need to pee right away? 🤭

Oh no does widdle baby not wanna get up to pee? Well mommy has a solution, but you're not gonna like it! Unless you do, and then mommy is going to be very happy with you.

Would be really funny if I started telling OP lies just for funsies 😋

Omg ur country is great I love the repeated buildings across the landscape its so artistic and awesome :3

I know the west dislikes your country but they're wrong it's because of dark money oil PACs funding our imperialist reductionist evil corpo oligarchy :3

Oh and if anyone disagrees with me I'd call in the heavy armor!! C:

Moral relativity says if its less annoying and sm3lly than I am, it's good tho :3

Yeah startpage fucking slaps, so this is a real shame.

I'd rather never use a search engine again than pay $10 a month for one