7 ms·

The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us t

The final decision made by this article is one I agree with with or without money and I have no incentive the game. Every piece of creation you and I make us the sum total of our experiences and that includes copy written work. Holding an LLM guilty for that is like holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work.

nirvdrum 3y ago
And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. If they were, they would be taught rules & techniques and set off to their own devices to draw, like humans. But, they can't and they're not. LLMs and humans don't learn or create in the same way. Moreover, there's no reason we should grant LLMs the full rights and privileges of humans.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  Are we going to hold all human artists to that standard as well? I suspect many would fail it.
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    I don't follow. Which standard is that? Many (most?) artists do in fact fail, particularly if they're unable to find a creative way to differentiate themselves. Society generally shuns plagiarism. We call out things that are deemed as "knock-offs", whether they're bands, video games, movies, books, or clothing.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  And yet humans plagiarize all the time. And how do you measure genuine creativity? See the Chinese Room thought experiment. Also we generally don't make our tools able to "set off to their own devices" because that's silly. I agree with the substance of software operating differently from humans and that we should currently maintain a distinction between software and human rights. Of which I do not believe copyright is a fundamental one, merely a legislative one(and one I might add has been stolen from current living humans- I'm in midlife and I can't creatively revamp works that are twice as old as I am, how is that fair that I can't use nostalgia from my childhood commercially as an adult?).
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    And we penalize plagiarism. Sure, people often get away with it but it's not something we generally condone.
- naasking 3y ago
  > And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. Define "genuine creativity".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. So, to round out the inevitable circular discussion I've gone ahead and asked ChatGPT for you: Genuine creativity, often attributed to humans, is the ability to generate, imagine, or invent something new and original that has value or meaning. It involves thinking beyond existing boundaries, making connections between different pieces of information, and coming up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity can manifest in many forms, including: Artistic creativity: This is often the first thing people think of when they hear the word "creativity". It includes creating visual art, music, literature, and more. Inventive creativity: This involves coming up with new products, technologies, or methods that solve problems in novel ways. Conceptual creativity: This involves developing new theories, models, or ways of understanding the world. Problem-solving creativity: This involves finding unique solutions to challenges or problems. Genuine creativity is often characterized by originality, expressiveness, and the ability to transform or redefine existing ideas or norms. It's a complex process that involves both conscious and unconscious thinking, and it's influenced by a person's knowledge, experiences, personality, and environment. I went a step further and asked if it's capable of genuine creativity and received: As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously. However, I can generate unique combinations of information based on the vast amount of data I've been trained on. This can sometimes appear as "creativity", but it's important to note that it's a result of complex algorithms and computations, not genuine creative thought.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, therefore we can make no such definitive claims about how machine learning and human cognitive processes. ChatGPT has specifically been trained to give this response despite agreeing with an argument that suggests it could indeed have mental states: https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 > As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously Define "spontaneously". If you mean that humans act without apparent cause, that does not entail there is no cause. If there is a cause, then that cause can be modeled as an input into a pure function. ChatGPT and other ML systems are pure functions can also mix concepts and generate new and unique outputs from its learned state space given such inputs. Humans are still more complex than such systems, so the mystique can hide in the perceived complexity, but don't mistake this for a different kind of process. Which isn't to say that it is the same process, I'm saying there's no real basis for either claim. I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking going on when comparing human brains and ML, particularly ascribing some sort of exceptionalism to humans. There's a long, incorrect history of that.
- corethree 3y ago
  If the content generated by an LLM does not exist anywhere else... it is by definition "creative."
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    Which is precisely why I said “genuine creativity” in hopes of avoiding pedantry around word etymology. It’s hard to have these discussions when people are deliberately being obtuse. By this definition, nearly everything is creative making any discussion about it meaningless. So, let’s use the connotative meaning.
    - corethree 3y ago
      Ok yeah let's avoid that bullshit then. The problem is there's enough leeway between the words that I could honestly say everything LLMs generate are representative of what most humans define as "genuine creativity" and I bet you that I can show you human art and computer art side by side and you'd be incapable of knowing which one is genuinely creative. I hate pedantic vocabulary just as much as you and this is not the direction I want to take it. But that test I outlined above literally points out that there is no difference. What the LLMs output fits our definition of genuine creativity because you can't tell the difference. In fact the word itself is the ludicrous thing here. You just made it up to differentiate AI art and human art, but in reality there is no differentiator it's one category with zero recognizable difference... the only actual difference is "what" created it.
      - grey8 3y ago
        I think you're right. Why? Just observe how art and content is perceived before and after you tell people it was made by AI. I think it's an unfounded bias. You probably remember the AI art piece that won an art contest? It was perceived as better than the rest, obviously, or it wouldn't have won - until it was revealed it was made by AI. Now, IMHO, that was not fair and if it was disqualified, that was absolutely the right move, but that's not the point. The same can be observed when people talk about (AI) art. I've seen people comment "Awesome! There is just something about [this artwork] that AI can't reproduce, human art has soul!" even though the artwork they commented on* was made by AI After it is revealed to be AI made, it is suddenly "soulless" and not genuine anymore. I remember there was an online mental health care platform that (without revealing this) introduced AI therapists. According to their analytics, the AI therapists, on average, got higher scores than the human therapists. Then, word got out they're using AI and suddenly, people rated the service a lot worse than before. It was obviously wrong to not disclose this. There's nothing wrong with valuing craftsmanship and human work higher than machine work. We as humans do and I do, too - but generally, nowadays, digital watercolor art made in Photoshop (and co) is not inherently considered "not creative" or "soulless" because it wasn't painted with real watercolor... but I'm pretty sure that was not always the case. I'm sure artists discussed about how digital art is not genuine, creative or soulless back then, too. Can anyone that was there at the time tell me if there were similarities in sentiment when digital art and Photoshop (and co) became popular? What I'm trying to say is that there is definitely a bias at work and people generally can't tell the difference if they are not told about the (possibility of) involvement of AI. I also fear that currently, we're just the lame adults that don't like the new thing and eventually in 10 to 20 years after AI art is normal and accepted by the generation that grew up with it, something new will come out that that generation will think is lame and not genuine, and so on. That is how I remember it. I'm relatively sure, but take it with a grain of salt - memories are, as we know, not reliable.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright "The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable), or that all DeviantArt users’ Output Images rely upon (theoretically) copyrighted Training Images, and therefore all Output images are derivative images" This displays either ignorance as to how artists work and the extent to which they are involved or can be involved in the legal copyright system, or reflects incoherence around the copyright system. In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use That is now a new precedent that negatively impacts individual artists who have no power in the market, and protects giant corporate interests which have tons of power in the market
- marcinzm 3y ago
  > In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use No, this has always been the case. The judge ruled nothing new. You cannot sue someone for copyright unless you first register the copyright. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-property/infringement-of-copyright/#:~:text=All%20lawsuits%20for%20infringement%20of,or%20business%20violating%20your%20copyright https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-p....
  - Zanni 3y ago
    You're arguing something slightly different. The artist has copyright as soon as the work is published, whether they register it or not. You can't sue unless you've registered. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/
- jcranmer 3y ago
  17 USC §411 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411): > Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [NB: 106A(a) is right of attribution]. It's the law, as enacted by Congress (even though it is probably a violation of the TRIPS Agreement, an international treaty signed by the US). But note there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material, although the work has to be registered before infringement if you want statutory damages (the big $$$$) instead of just actual damages.
woodrowbarlow 3y ago
it's interesting that you start from the assumption that a piece of software should be judged by the same measure as a human.
- corethree 3y ago
  The person(s) being sued is human. A human committed this act.
YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
This argument gets repeated often enough that it implies that there are a significant number of people who actually believe it. This is pretty depressing, as the only way you could think that a human is not fundamentally more capable of creativity than an LLM is if you are incapable of imagining anything other than a life of ‘consuming content’.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  So specifically what is there except the sum total of our experiences and our genetics?
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Even if this is true, the sum of a human's total experiences is far more vast than what LLMs are trained on and is mostly non-copyrighted material. Your eyes are open ~16 hours a day, constantly exposing your brain to various non-copyrighted stuff like trees, rocks, animals, the insides of your house, the crap on your desk, other people's faces, traffic, etc.
    - corethree 3y ago
      Right. LLMs have content that isn't copyrighted too. But humans like LLMs do have copyrighted content. That means humans are breaking the law that LLMs are also breaking.
      - Riverheart 3y ago
        Human society is built around humans so there is a reason I’m allowed to store art and stories in my brain; I and the vast majority of people can do jack all with it, pose little threat to the owners if we could, would draw attention if we did, and it’s not worthwhile or feasible to sue an entire population of content consumers for consuming content so people act smart and pick and choose their battles so society can function. LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. They don’t remember the Target logo to go shop there or a college class they took to apply for a job so they can be a tax paying member of society.
AlexandrB 3y ago
For me this argument will hold water when we can put LLMs in jail if they commit a criminal act. Until then, an LLM is not a human and not entitled to be treated like one. Moreover, at least in the case of music, people have been successfully sued when their song strongly resembles another copyrighted work. Thus "holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work" is actually the status quo.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  You'll still be able to successfully sue people "when their [AI generated] song strongly resembles another copyrighted work". The question is that vague resemblance is subject to copyright.
snovv_crash 3y ago
It's ok to give humans rights that we don't give to machines.
- corethree 3y ago
  You're saying humans can break copyright but machines can't? You realized machines didn't break copyright right? Machines can't do this yet so it's a non issue at this point. Humans were sued in this lawsuit because humans are the ones who did this action. The lawsuit is about this: I can copy stuff into my brain but not into my cybernetic assistive brain.
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Copyright holders aren't complaining about the training per se, they are complaining about the distribution and outputs of the models which in many cases directly regurgitate the training data.
    - corethree 3y ago
      In most cases it won't regurgitate the same training data. What happens is the model essentially models a full on continuous curve that best fits in-between the training data. The amount of points on that curve is 9999999x more then the training data and that 999999 is not an exaggeration. It's likely too small of a number.
      - snovv_crash 3y ago
        I disagree, the size of the models are a lot smaller than the training data. Just because I make an algorithm that linearly interpolates between two (copyrighted) values doesn't mean that it is creative or holds the wisdom between them.

nirvdrum 3y ago

And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. If they were, they would be taught rules & techniques and set off to their own devices to draw, like humans. But, they can't and they're not. LLMs and humans don't learn or create in the same way. Moreover, there's no reason we should grant LLMs the full rights and privileges of humans.

marcinzm 3y ago
Are we going to hold all human artists to that standard as well? I suspect many would fail it.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  I don't follow. Which standard is that? Many (most?) artists do in fact fail, particularly if they're unable to find a creative way to differentiate themselves. Society generally shuns plagiarism. We call out things that are deemed as "knock-offs", whether they're bands, video games, movies, books, or clothing.
r2_pilot 3y ago
And yet humans plagiarize all the time. And how do you measure genuine creativity? See the Chinese Room thought experiment. Also we generally don't make our tools able to "set off to their own devices" because that's silly. I agree with the substance of software operating differently from humans and that we should currently maintain a distinction between software and human rights. Of which I do not believe copyright is a fundamental one, merely a legislative one(and one I might add has been stolen from current living humans- I'm in midlife and I can't creatively revamp works that are twice as old as I am, how is that fair that I can't use nostalgia from my childhood commercially as an adult?).
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  And we penalize plagiarism. Sure, people often get away with it but it's not something we generally condone.
naasking 3y ago
> And yet these systems are incapable of genuine creativity. Define "genuine creativity".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. So, to round out the inevitable circular discussion I've gone ahead and asked ChatGPT for you: Genuine creativity, often attributed to humans, is the ability to generate, imagine, or invent something new and original that has value or meaning. It involves thinking beyond existing boundaries, making connections between different pieces of information, and coming up with innovative solutions to problems. Creativity can manifest in many forms, including: Artistic creativity: This is often the first thing people think of when they hear the word "creativity". It includes creating visual art, music, literature, and more. Inventive creativity: This involves coming up with new products, technologies, or methods that solve problems in novel ways. Conceptual creativity: This involves developing new theories, models, or ways of understanding the world. Problem-solving creativity: This involves finding unique solutions to challenges or problems. Genuine creativity is often characterized by originality, expressiveness, and the ability to transform or redefine existing ideas or norms. It's a complex process that involves both conscious and unconscious thinking, and it's influenced by a person's knowledge, experiences, personality, and environment. I went a step further and asked if it's capable of genuine creativity and received: As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously. However, I can generate unique combinations of information based on the vast amount of data I've been trained on. This can sometimes appear as "creativity", but it's important to note that it's a result of complex algorithms and computations, not genuine creative thought.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > Given the terse reply, I'm guessing you disagree that it's even a concept. My terse reply actually indicates an understanding that we completely lack a formal definition of "genuine creativity", and therefore any such claims are vague intuitions at best. > I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences This implicitly assumes we have a mechanistic understanding of feelings, thoughts or experiences. We don't, therefore we can make no such definitive claims about how machine learning and human cognitive processes. ChatGPT has specifically been trained to give this response despite agreeing with an argument that suggests it could indeed have mental states: https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 https://twitter.com/naasking/status/1598802001428566016 > As an AI, I don't possess creativity in the human sense. I don't have feelings, thoughts, or experiences, and I don't generate ideas or concepts spontaneously Define "spontaneously". If you mean that humans act without apparent cause, that does not entail there is no cause. If there is a cause, then that cause can be modeled as an input into a pure function. ChatGPT and other ML systems are pure functions can also mix concepts and generate new and unique outputs from its learned state space given such inputs. Humans are still more complex than such systems, so the mystique can hide in the perceived complexity, but don't mistake this for a different kind of process. Which isn't to say that it is the same process, I'm saying there's no real basis for either claim. I think there's a lot of sloppy thinking going on when comparing human brains and ML, particularly ascribing some sort of exceptionalism to humans. There's a long, incorrect history of that.
corethree 3y ago
If the content generated by an LLM does not exist anywhere else... it is by definition "creative."
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Which is precisely why I said “genuine creativity” in hopes of avoiding pedantry around word etymology. It’s hard to have these discussions when people are deliberately being obtuse. By this definition, nearly everything is creative making any discussion about it meaningless. So, let’s use the connotative meaning.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Ok yeah let's avoid that bullshit then. The problem is there's enough leeway between the words that I could honestly say everything LLMs generate are representative of what most humans define as "genuine creativity" and I bet you that I can show you human art and computer art side by side and you'd be incapable of knowing which one is genuinely creative. I hate pedantic vocabulary just as much as you and this is not the direction I want to take it. But that test I outlined above literally points out that there is no difference. What the LLMs output fits our definition of genuine creativity because you can't tell the difference. In fact the word itself is the ludicrous thing here. You just made it up to differentiate AI art and human art, but in reality there is no differentiator it's one category with zero recognizable difference... the only actual difference is "what" created it.
    - grey8 3y ago
      I think you're right. Why? Just observe how art and content is perceived before and after you tell people it was made by AI. I think it's an unfounded bias. You probably remember the AI art piece that won an art contest? It was perceived as better than the rest, obviously, or it wouldn't have won - until it was revealed it was made by AI. Now, IMHO, that was not fair and if it was disqualified, that was absolutely the right move, but that's not the point. The same can be observed when people talk about (AI) art. I've seen people comment "Awesome! There is just something about [this artwork] that AI can't reproduce, human art has soul!" even though the artwork they commented on* was made by AI After it is revealed to be AI made, it is suddenly "soulless" and not genuine anymore. I remember there was an online mental health care platform that (without revealing this) introduced AI therapists. According to their analytics, the AI therapists, on average, got higher scores than the human therapists. Then, word got out they're using AI and suddenly, people rated the service a lot worse than before. It was obviously wrong to not disclose this. There's nothing wrong with valuing craftsmanship and human work higher than machine work. We as humans do and I do, too - but generally, nowadays, digital watercolor art made in Photoshop (and co) is not inherently considered "not creative" or "soulless" because it wasn't painted with real watercolor... but I'm pretty sure that was not always the case. I'm sure artists discussed about how digital art is not genuine, creative or soulless back then, too. Can anyone that was there at the time tell me if there were similarities in sentiment when digital art and Photoshop (and co) became popular? What I'm trying to say is that there is definitely a bias at work and people generally can't tell the difference if they are not told about the (possibility of) involvement of AI. I also fear that currently, we're just the lame adults that don't like the new thing and eventually in 10 to 20 years after AI art is normal and accepted by the generation that grew up with it, something new will come out that that generation will think is lame and not genuine, and so on. That is how I remember it. I'm relatively sure, but take it with a grain of salt - memories are, as we know, not reliable.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

You seemed to miss the part where the judge said that the only things that can be claimed as copyrighted are those things that were submitted to the USPTO for specific narrow coptright "The other problem for plaintiffs is that it is simply not plausible that every Training Image used to train Stable Diffusion was copyrighted (as opposed to copyrightable), or that all DeviantArt users’ Output Images rely upon (theoretically) copyrighted Training Images, and therefore all Output images are derivative images" This displays either ignorance as to how artists work and the extent to which they are involved or can be involved in the legal copyright system, or reflects incoherence around the copyright system. In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use That is now a new precedent that negatively impacts individual artists who have no power in the market, and protects giant corporate interests which have tons of power in the market

marcinzm 3y ago
> In this case the Judge chose to say, in effect: unless you have explicitly copyrighted it, it's fair use No, this has always been the case. The judge ruled nothing new. You cannot sue someone for copyright unless you first register the copyright. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-property/infringement-of-copyright/#:~:text=All%20lawsuits%20for%20infringement%20of,or%20business%20violating%20your%20copyright https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/intellectual-p....
- Zanni 3y ago
  You're arguing something slightly different. The artist has copyright as soon as the work is published, whether they register it or not. You can't sue unless you've registered. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/
jcranmer 3y ago
17 USC §411 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/411): > Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b),[1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [NB: 106A(a) is right of attribution]. It's the law, as enacted by Congress (even though it is probably a violation of the TRIPS Agreement, an international treaty signed by the US). But note there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material, although the work has to be registered before infringement if you want statutory damages (the big $$$$) instead of just actual damages.

woodrowbarlow 3y ago

it's interesting that you start from the assumption that a piece of software should be judged by the same measure as a human.

corethree 3y ago
The person(s) being sued is human. A human committed this act.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago

This argument gets repeated often enough that it implies that there are a significant number of people who actually believe it. This is pretty depressing, as the only way you could think that a human is not fundamentally more capable of creativity than an LLM is if you are incapable of imagining anything other than a life of ‘consuming content’.

marcinzm 3y ago
So specifically what is there except the sum total of our experiences and our genetics?
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Even if this is true, the sum of a human's total experiences is far more vast than what LLMs are trained on and is mostly non-copyrighted material. Your eyes are open ~16 hours a day, constantly exposing your brain to various non-copyrighted stuff like trees, rocks, animals, the insides of your house, the crap on your desk, other people's faces, traffic, etc.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Right. LLMs have content that isn't copyrighted too. But humans like LLMs do have copyrighted content. That means humans are breaking the law that LLMs are also breaking.
    - Riverheart 3y ago
      Human society is built around humans so there is a reason I’m allowed to store art and stories in my brain; I and the vast majority of people can do jack all with it, pose little threat to the owners if we could, would draw attention if we did, and it’s not worthwhile or feasible to sue an entire population of content consumers for consuming content so people act smart and pick and choose their battles so society can function. LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. They don’t remember the Target logo to go shop there or a college class they took to apply for a job so they can be a tax paying member of society.

AlexandrB 3y ago

For me this argument will hold water when we can put LLMs in jail if they commit a criminal act. Until then, an LLM is not a human and not entitled to be treated like one. Moreover, at least in the case of music, people have been successfully sued when their song strongly resembles another copyrighted work. Thus "holding the human brain guilty for memorizing copyrighted work" is actually the status quo.

gpderetta 3y ago
You'll still be able to successfully sue people "when their [AI generated] song strongly resembles another copyrighted work". The question is that vague resemblance is subject to copyright.

snovv_crash 3y ago

It's ok to give humans rights that we don't give to machines.

corethree 3y ago
You're saying humans can break copyright but machines can't? You realized machines didn't break copyright right? Machines can't do this yet so it's a non issue at this point. Humans were sued in this lawsuit because humans are the ones who did this action. The lawsuit is about this: I can copy stuff into my brain but not into my cybernetic assistive brain.
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  Copyright holders aren't complaining about the training per se, they are complaining about the distribution and outputs of the models which in many cases directly regurgitate the training data.
  - corethree 3y ago
    In most cases it won't regurgitate the same training data. What happens is the model essentially models a full on continuous curve that best fits in-between the training data. The amount of points on that curve is 9999999x more then the training data and that 999999 is not an exaggeration. It's likely too small of a number.
    - snovv_crash 3y ago
      I disagree, the size of the models are a lot smaller than the training data. Just because I make an algorithm that linearly interpolates between two (copyrighted) values doesn't mean that it is creative or holds the wisdom between them.