This is more bark than bite, imo. They’re just threatening to withhold products at this point, but as the article points out:
So… go right ahead. Let’s see how this really plays out.
Most people don’t know how to switch between inputs on their TVs or have gotten rid of their DVD or BluRay players at this point.
They’re using the built in streaming apps or they’ve plugged a Roku in where the cable box used to go.
The RIAA vs the AI industry… Can they both lose?
As far as it is, it’s still just under one day at light speed.
This toggle allows you to opt out of having profiling used for future decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects about you.
The what now?
This sounds strangely ominous.
Unless they’re really into arts and crafts, there’s no good reason for a home user to buy an inkjet anymore.
If every once in a while they want a nice photo print or to print up some flyers in color or something, it’s cheaper and less overall hassle to just pay per page at a drug store or office store on those occasions.
There aren’t really any good ones, just a few different quality tiers between “low” and “extremely low”
The ones with rising crusts usually have higher quality sauce, cheese and toppings and are more filling because they’re breadier.
Yes, this is totally a symbolic move and nothing has meaningfully changed at Unity. Riccitiello is probably walking away with many millions of dollars and the rest of the leadership team who were fully onboard with the new licensing plan are still there. Once the negative press dies down, Unity will try something equally shitty again.
Developers would be foolish to trust this company ever again.
The Universe probably wouldn’t fit in a sphere of any size and it very well may be infinite.
But looking at a very large spherical region like the visible universe from our perspective here on Earth, everything is moving away from us. If objects were being pulled towards one particular edge of our imaginary sphere, it would look very different. We’d see a clear drift in that direction, but it all looks pretty even across every direction we look.
Allegedly, Ira Behr wanted to end the series by making it all a fever dream by Benny Hill but Berman wouldn’t let him.
An increasing number of restaurants are pulling exactly this sort of bullshit–little 3.5% fees at the bottom of the total check disclosed only in fine print on the menu (if at all) tied to COVID, paying their staff, processing credit cards, etc. It needs to end. Pricing should be upfront so customers can compare what they’re actually paying, not snuck in at the end.
I’m seeing it more and more. Little “processing fees” here and there, some tied to COVID, some tied to credit cards. There needs to be a clap-back against this behavior.
Deep Space 9: The Prophets are future Bajorans that evolved beyond space & time, which is why they refer to themselves as “of Bajor” and have such a high interest in the fate of its people. The Pah-wraiths are just future evolved asshole Bajorans like Kai Winn & Jaro Essa.
Humans are terrible batteries/fuel cells. And Orpheus said the machines had fusion power. It makes far more sense that the machines were using humans for computing, not basic metabolism. It’s been mentioned that this was the Wachowskis’ original intention but the suits made them dumb it down for audiences to understand but I haven’t found any direct quotes about that.
My bet is: it’s going to depend on a case by case basis.
Almost certainly. Getty images has several exhibits in its suit against Stable Diffusion showing the Getty watermark popping up in its output as well as several images that are substantially the same as their sources. Other generative models don’t produce anything all that similar to the source material, so we’re probably going to wind up with lots of completely different and likely contradictory rulings on the matter before this gets anywhere near being sorted out legally.
Copyright laws are not necessarily wrong; just remove the “until author’s death plus 70 years” coverage, go back to a more reasonable “4 years since publication”, and they make much more sense.
The trouble with that line of thinking is that the laws are under no obligation to make sense. And the people who write and litigate those laws benefit from making them as complicated and irrational as they can get away with.
Not a single original sentence of the original work is retained in the model.
Which is why I find it interesting that none of the court cases (as far as I’m aware) are challenging whether an LLM is copying anything in the first place. Granted, that’s the plaintiff’s job to prove, but there’s no need to raise a fair use defense at all if no copying occurred.
Clearly transformative only applies to the work a human has put in to the process. It isn’t at all clear that an LLM would pass muster for a fair use defense, but there are court cases in progress that may try to answer that question. Ultimately, I think what it’s going to come down to is whether the training process itself and the human effort involved in training the model on copyrighted data is considered transformative enough to be fair use, or doesn’t constitute copying at all. As far as I know, none of the big cases are trying the “not a copy” defense, so we’ll have to see how this all plays out.
In any event, copyright laws are horrifically behind the times and it’s going to take new legislation sooner or later.
This thread is about ChatGPT, an LLM. It is not a general purpose AI.
So if someone builds an atom-perfect artificial brain from scratch, sticks it in a body, and shows it around the world, should we expect the creator to pay licensing fees to the owners of everything it looks at?
That’s unrelated to an LLM. An LLM is not a synthetic human brain. It’s a computer program and sets of statistical data points from large amounts of training data to generate outputs from prompts.
If we get real general-purpose AI some day in the future, then we’ll need to answer those sorts of questions. But that’s not what we have today.
$130 menu price but regularly goes on sale for $99. Still not cheap (especially compared to the “free” ad platform built in to the TV) but lessens the sting a bit. And much less likely to be abandoned by its manufacturer and get exploited.