If it's not then a company or author can reject reviews, analyst or research. No one would discover bias in reporting, discrimination in products, etc.
Laws have to be written carefully to balance both.
I can barely stand to read any of this legal reasoning blah blah (and I’m a lawyer). Every fiber of my being is screaming, “This is theft!” Disgusting.
Theft, respectfully, in what sense? You have a deep emotional response. Is it because the AI is mechanical? Not human? It looks like a person hiding behind a lock pick set saying the door was opened by the pick not by me?
It is because of the deep and difficult work that writing is. Taking that writing, feeding it into a machine, so it can copy the style, etc., and spit out its “own” books. If I were an author, I would be so disgusted at the use of my work in this way. Same for musicians.
I have written and been around writers for years. I understand the painful process. Yet, the books generated are its own. New stories inspired by the questions / requests of other people. Actually i see this raising the value of human materal
JB is right, stealing is wrong. Without getting into the details of IP law, we're about to go through a generational 180 on the issue of piracy. My thoughts are here.
“if someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.” this combined with the point about Anthropic using pirated copies vs Meta using legitimate copies is to me, the core of the argument. Only those who are so out of touch that they still believe the "stochastic parrot" B.S. can hold that what the AIs output is plagiarism because of the source. Now that we have, especially in math but more often everywhere, AI generating clearly new ideas that were beyond the grasp of all humanity for decades of hard work, it is clear they are generating new ideas.
That's speech that should be protected and allowed.
But pirating is still illegal. Get the source properly.
On that line, I really love Denmark's law giving every citizen trademark rights to their voice and appearance.
If it's not then a company or author can reject reviews, analyst or research. No one would discover bias in reporting, discrimination in products, etc.
Laws have to be written carefully to balance both.
I can barely stand to read any of this legal reasoning blah blah (and I’m a lawyer). Every fiber of my being is screaming, “This is theft!” Disgusting.
Theft, respectfully, in what sense? You have a deep emotional response. Is it because the AI is mechanical? Not human? It looks like a person hiding behind a lock pick set saying the door was opened by the pick not by me?
It is because of the deep and difficult work that writing is. Taking that writing, feeding it into a machine, so it can copy the style, etc., and spit out its “own” books. If I were an author, I would be so disgusted at the use of my work in this way. Same for musicians.
I have written and been around writers for years. I understand the painful process. Yet, the books generated are its own. New stories inspired by the questions / requests of other people. Actually i see this raising the value of human materal
JB is right, stealing is wrong. Without getting into the details of IP law, we're about to go through a generational 180 on the issue of piracy. My thoughts are here.
https://turingpolice.substack.com/p/ban-piracy-for-ai
“if someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.” this combined with the point about Anthropic using pirated copies vs Meta using legitimate copies is to me, the core of the argument. Only those who are so out of touch that they still believe the "stochastic parrot" B.S. can hold that what the AIs output is plagiarism because of the source. Now that we have, especially in math but more often everywhere, AI generating clearly new ideas that were beyond the grasp of all humanity for decades of hard work, it is clear they are generating new ideas.
That's speech that should be protected and allowed.
But pirating is still illegal. Get the source properly.
On that line, I really love Denmark's law giving every citizen trademark rights to their voice and appearance.