AxaloteDev: Going with your example, the fact that a gen AI model is not alive and can be replicated infinitely (through the weights) makes this fundamentally different from a parrot learning a song. While the parrot can sing, it cannot be used anytime, anywhere, forever, and can't learn more than a few songs, it will always be treated as no more than a funny thing; so the threat it poses to the original author is none.
A gen AI model however, is permanent, and is an active threat to the original authors. There is an infinite number of "parrots" that know every song in existence and can replicate, make derivate works, etc. anytime, anywhere, forever. Therefore, the training is infringing the copyright holder's exclusivity right and the control over their work.
This is indeed an interesting trial of the word's legal system.
(That's all without even touching the deeper moral/ethics of gen AI.)
Looks so obvious now, I can't believe I thought "copyratable" was an actual word.
amok: I understand what you are trying to say, but that is not how it works. Copyright infringement is not determined simply by scale or economic impact. If that were the case, then a prolific human artist who studied thousands of songs or paintings and produced many derivative works could also be seen as infringing copyright simply because of the amount of work they create.
The key issue in copyright law is whether any protected expression is being copied in a legally meaningful way. In the case of LLMs, the question is not primarily how many outputs they can produce, but how those outputs are generated and whether they reproduce copyrighted material. So courts have to decide whether LLM training is more like storing and reproducing expressive works, or whether it is extracting statistical patterns from large datasets. If the system is effectively reproducing stored copyrighted works, that could clearly be infringement. But if it is generating new material based on statistical relationships, then the issue becomes much less straightforward.
So the central question here is not really about scale or permanence, but whether protected expression is being reproduced in a way that copyright law can recognise as infringement.
I agree with most of what you said, not going to argue on the points I disagree because I'm tired lol.
Anyway, we'll see what happens, although I am kind of a pessimist, capitalism makes justice a rare occurrence.
Thank you for the civilized discussion, this is uncommon these days :>
The Verge posted a super interesting report on data collection by AI companies if anyone is interested:
www.theverge.com/cs/features/877388/white-collar-workers-training-ai-mercor (possibly paywalled).
Jinini: For info for those not on IG, GOG continue to credit/tag and share content made by Binadra over on IG,
Some good vids tbh!
They also commented saying 'These talents deserve to reach as many people as possible. Curious which creator will end up being your favorite :D'
Meaning we might look forward to a variety or creators in the near future? :D
@Alexim Do we need a GOG Artist Award next year too maybe? :D (maybe a rememberance poster for the one we seem to have lost too) ;(
That aside, this is good yall:)
I really like some of these tbh!
@GOG could also maybe do something like adding images from these videos to the front page or forum or anywhere really, also outside of sale events. Just to spice it up and say hey look real artist here! :P
And because some of those are pretty neat and fun!
See images and links for some good examples lately, there is a ton from this same artist since 'our rebellion':
Next united GOG mission: End world Hunger! (and worldwide ban of pineapple on pizza) (not the game, that game was freaking awesome, pls bring it to GOG!) xD
https://www.instagram.com/p/DU0rnMJj2HH/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DU6IFocjn6B/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DUYh2x5jlxo/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DRzjMkdkj7f/
https://www.instagram.com/p/DRPhouRFe-O/
Cool :)
The grandma one sent me lol