Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
And yet if one wishes to ask:
Did they have the right to do that?
That is inherently the realm of lawyer speak because you’re asking what the law says about something.
The alternative is vigilantism and “mob justice.” That’s not a good thing.
I’ve heard the distinction described as “it’s a cult when the founder is still around making stuff up, it becomes a religion after he dies and his followers are left to continue doing that in his name.”
Stable Diffusion was trained on the LIAON-5B image dataset, which as the name implies has around 5 billion images in it. The resulting model was around 3 gigabytes. If this is indeed a “compression” algorithm then it’s the most magical and physics-defying ever, as it manages to compress images to less than one byte each.
Besides, even if we consider the model itself to be fine, they did not buy all the media they trained the model on.
That is a completely separate issue. You can sue them for copyright violation regarding the actual acts of copyright violation. If an artist steals a bunch of art books to study then sue him for stealing the art books, but you can’t extend that to say that anything he drew based on that learning is also a copyright violation or that the knowledge inside his head is a copyright violation.
What’s the artistic part in “taping a banana to the wall?”
Art is in the eye of the beholder, you don’t get to declare what is and is not art for everyone else.
They’re saying that the NYT basically forced ChatGPT to spit out the “infringing” text. Like manually typing it into Microsoft Word and then going “gasp! Microsoft Word has violated our copyright!”
The key point here is that you can’t simply take the statements of one side in a lawsuit as being “the truth.” Obviously the laywers for each side are going to claim that their side is right and the other side are a bunch of awful jerks. That’s their jobs, that’s how the American legal system works. You don’t get an actual usable result until the judge makes his ruling and the appeals are exhausted.
In its suit, the Times alleges that
Emphasis added. Of course they’re going to claim their copyright was violated, they don’t have a case otherwise.
It remains to be seen how the case will be decided.
A man’s friend has generated a cute image that she finds amusing. In response, the man has decided to kill her and also himself.
Woo, hilarious.
Ah yes, murder-suicide is a perfectly reasonable response to your friend doing something artistic that you disagree with.
Training doesn’t involve copying anything, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t. You need to copy something to violate copyright.
Right, but the point I’m trying to ask about is whether they’re treating Ghibli specially here. People are reacting as if OpenAI is thumbing its nose specifically at Miyazaki here, whereas the impression I’ve got is that they simply opened the floodgates and dropped restrictions on styling in general.
Style has never been covered by copyright to begin with, so any concerns they might have had about being sued over style would have always been erring on the side of caution. They may simply think that the legal environment has calmed down enough that they won’t be inundated with frivolous lawsuits any more.
Yes, I read the article. But it doesn’t answer my question. Did OpenAI specifically enable Ghibli style, or did it remove the restrictions in general?
Everyone’s pulling out Miyazaki’s out-of-context quote about procedural animation and are interpreting this as some kind of personal attack against him in particular because of it, but unless OpenAI specifically made Ghibli style available without lifting restrictions on others I don’t see a reason to assume that.
Also, an article that calls X “The Nazi Network” is not exactly the most reliable source. This isn’t even about X.
Masad’s comments have come up before and sparked huge outrage before and just like before people are missing the hugely important context here.
He added that coding may become obsolete, but people will still need to continue to work on their fundamentals: “I’m at this point, like agents pilled. I’m very bullish. Like, I sort of changed my answer even like a year ago. I would say kind of learn a bit of coding. I would say learn how to think, learn how to break down problems, right? Learn how to communicate clearly, with as you would with humans, but also with machines.”
The way I see it, he’s thinking that the current-day approach to coding is likely to go the same way that coding in assembly language went when high-level languages and compilers became good and common. The vast majority of programmers never need to think about individual registers or the specific sequence of opcodes needed to perform operations or access memory, the compilers handle that and they do a great job. Only a handful of specialists really need to go down to the metal like that any more.
So too will it be for a lot of the programming that current day programmers do. It’ll still be useful to know how it works so that you’ll know what to ask for and what to do when something goes wrong, but 99% of the code will be done by AIs and will hardly even be looked at by a human. There’ll still be people who are experts at working with programs but the current approach to how that’s done is likely to be obsolete.
Did they specifically allow “Ghibly style?” Or did they just loosen the restrictions on asking for styles in general, and Ghibly style just turned out to be the popular one that memes started snowballing around?
Style cannot be copyrighted.
And if somehow copyright laws were changed so that it could be copyrighted it would be a creative apocalypse.
You didn’t read the article I linked. The term came into use before LLMs were a thing, it was originally used in relation to image processing.
Economics involves understanding and predicting the behaviour of large groups of people, doesn’t seem all that far off topic here. And of course the way that people react to AI-generated content in products will be quite relevant to lots of people trying to market such products.
This guy’s court cases are widely misunderstood by the general public.
In a nutshell: he’s a crank who is trying to tell the court “I don’t hold a copyright to the thing my AI produced, my AI holds the copyright.”
And the court tells him: “Only people (or legal persons, like corporations) can hold a copyright. Your AI cannot. If you say that you yourself don’t either, we can’t force you to have a copyright on it. So I guess that thing has no copyright and is therefore in the public domain.”
And then everyone gasps and exclaims “the court just ruled that AI-generated things are in the public domain!”
No, I think that anyone who declares that they know what art is or is not is wrong.
Art is different things to different people, there’s no objective determination.