7 ms·

As an experiment I searched Google for "harry potter and the sorcerer's stone text": - the first result is a pdf of the full book - the second result is a txt

by paxys 1y ago

As an experiment I searched Google for "harry potter and the sorcerer's stone text": - the first result is a pdf of the full book - the second result is a txt of the full book - the third result is a pdf of the complete harry potter collection - the fourth result is a txt of the full book (hosted on github funny enough) Further down there are similar copies from the internet archive and dozens of other sites. All in the first 2-3 pages. I get that copyright is a problem, but let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy. No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book.

aprilthird2021 1y ago
> let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy. No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book. Well, luckily the article points out what people are actually alleging: > There are actually three distinct theories of how training a model on copyrighted works could infringe copyright: > Training on a copyrighted work is inherently infringing because the training process involves making a digital copy of the work. > The training process copies information from the training data into the model, making the model a derivative work under copyright law. > Infringement occurs when a model generates (portions of) a copyrighted work. None of those claim that these models are a substitute to buying the books. That's not what the plaintiffs are alleging. Infringing on a copyright is not only a matter of privacy (piracy is one of many ways to infringe copyright)
- paxys 1y ago
  People aren't alleging this, the author of the article is.
- theK 1y ago
  I think that last scenario seems to be the most problematic. Technically it is the same thing that piracy via torrent does, distributing a small piece of a copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent.
OtherShrezzing 1y ago
I think the argument is less about piracy and more that the model(s output) is a derivative work of Harry Potter, and the rights holder should be paid accordingly when it’s reproduced.
- paxys 1y ago
  That may be relevant in the NYT vs OpenAI case, since NYT was supposedly able to reproduce entire articles in ChatGPT. Here Llama is predicting one sentence at a time when fed the previous one, with 50% accuracy, for 42% of the book. That can easily be written off as fair use.
  - gpm 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure books.google.com does the exact same with much better reliability... and the US courts found that to be fair use. (Agreeing with parent comment)
    - pclmulqdq 1y ago
      If there is a circuit split between it and NYT vs OAI, the Google Books ruling (in the famously tech-friendly ninth circuit) may also find itself under review.
  - echelon 1y ago
    > Here Llama is predicting one sentence at a time when fed the previous one, with 50% accuracy, for 42% of the book. That can easily be written off as fair use. Is that fair use, or is that compression of the verbatim source?
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      It doesn't let you recover the text without knowing it in advance, so no. You can't in particular iterate it sentence by sentence; you're unlikely to go past sentence 2 this way before it starts giving you back it's own ideas. The whole thing is a sleigh of hand, basically. There's 42% of the book there, in tiny pieces, which you can only identify if you know what you're looking for. The model itself does not.
eviks 1y ago
Let's also not pretend that "massive new" is the only relevant issue
choppaface 1y ago
A key idea premise is that LLMs will probably replace search engines and re-imagine the online ad economy. So today is a key moment for content creators to re-shape their business model, and that can include copyright law (as much or more as the DMCA change). Another key point is that you might download a Llama model and implicitly get a ton of copyright-protected content. Versus with a search engine you’re just connected to the source making it available. And would the LLM deter a full purchase? If the LLM gives you your fill for free, then maybe yes. Or, maybe it’s more like a 30-second preview of a hit single, which converts into a $20 purchase of the full album. Best to sue the LLM provider today and then you can get some color on the actual consumer impact through legal discovery or similar means.
BobbyTables2 1y ago
Indeed but since when is a blatantly derived work only using 50% of a copyrighted work without permission a paragon of copyright compliance? Music artists get in trouble for using more than a sample without permission — imagine if they just used 45% of a whole song instead… I’m amazed AI companies haven’t been sued to oblivion yet. This utter stupidity only continues because we named a collection of matrices “Artificial Intelligence” and somehow treat it as if it were a sentient pet. Amassing troves of copyrighted works illegally into a ZIP file wouldn’t be allowed. The fact that the meaning was compressed using “Math” makes everyone stop thinking because they don’t understand “Math”.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  >Amassing troves of copyrighted works illegally into a ZIP file wouldn’t be allowed. The fact that the meaning was compressed using “Math” makes everyone stop thinking because they don’t understand “Math”. LLMs are in reality the artifacts of lossy compression of significant chunks of all of the text ever produced by humanity. The "lossy" quality makes them able to predict new text "accurately" as a result. >compressed using “Math” This is every compression algorithm.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > a blatantly derived work only using 50% of a copyrighted work without permission What's the work here? If it's the output of the LLM, you have to feed in the entire book to make it output half a book so on an ethical level I'd say it's not an issue. If you start with a few sentences, you'll get back less than you put in. If the work is the LLM itself, something you don't distribute is much less affected by copyright. Go ahead and play entire songs by other artists during your jam sessions.
- yorwba 1y ago
  Music artists get in trouble for using more than a sample from other music artists without permission because their work is in direct competition with the work they're borrowing from. A ZIP file of a book is also in direct competition of the book, because you could open the ZIP file and read it instead of the book. A model that can take 50 tokens and give you a greater than 50% probability for the 50 next tokens 42% of the time is not in direct competition with the book, since starting from the beginning you'll lose the plot fairly quickly unless you already have the full book, and unlike music sampling from other music, the model output isn't good enough to read it instead of the book.
fishcrackers 1y ago
[dead]
zephyr9 1y ago
You were so close! The takeaway is not that LlmS represent a bottomless tar pit of piracy (they do) but that someone can immediately perform the task 58% better without the AI than with it. This is nothing more than “look what the clever computer can do.”
abtinf 1y ago
You really don't see the difference between Google indexing the content of third parties and directly hosting/distributing the content itself?
- Zambyte 1y ago
  Where are they putting any blame on Google here?
  - abtinf 1y ago
    Where did I say they were?
    - Zambyte 1y ago
      When you juxtaposed Google indexing with third parties hosting the content...?
- imgabe 1y ago
  Hosting model weights is not hosting / distributing the content.
  - abtinf 1y ago
    Of course it is. It's just a form of compression. If I train an autoencoder on an image, and distribute the weights, that would obviously be the same as distributing the content. Just because the content is commingled with lots of other content doesn't make it disappear. Besides, where did the sections of text from the input works that show up in the output text come from? Divine inspiration? God whispering to the machine?
    - imgabe 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - 1y ago
timeon 1y ago
Is this whataboutism? Anyway, it is not the same. While one points you to pirated source on specific request, other use it to creating other content not just on direct request. As it was part of training data. Nihilists would then point out that 'people do the same' but they don't as we do not have same capabilities of processing the content.
TGower 1y ago
People aren't buying Harry Potter action figures as a subtitute for buying the book either, but copyright protects creators from other people swooping in and using their work in other mediums. There is obviously a huge market demand for high quality data for training LLMs, Meta just spent 15 billion on a data labeling company. Companies training LLMs on copyrighted material without permission are doing that as a substitue for obtaining a license from the creator for doing so in the same way that a pirate downloading a torrent is a substitue for getting an ebook license.
- ritz_labringue 1y ago
  Harry Potter action figures trade almost entirely on J. K. Rowling’s expressive choices. Every unlicensed toy competes head‑to‑head with the licensed one and slices off a share of a finite pot of fandom spending. Copyright law treats that as classic market substitution and rightfully lets the author police it. Dropping the novels into a machine‑learning corpus is a fundamentally different act. The text is not being resold, and the resulting model is not advertised as “official Harry Potter.” The books are just statistical nutrition. One ingredient among millions. Much like a human writer who reads widely before producing new work. No consumer is choosing between “Rowling’s novel” and “the tokens her novel contributed to an LLM,” so there’s no comparable displacement of demand. In economic terms, the merch market is rivalrous and zero‑sum; the training market is non‑rivalrous and produces no direct substitute good. That asymmetry is why copyright doctrine (and fair‑use case law) treats toy knock‑offs and corpus building very differently.
vrighter 1y ago
So? Am I allowed to also ignore certain laws if I can prove others have also ignored them?
pera 1y ago
> let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy No one is claiming this. The corporations developing LLMs are doing so by sampling media without their owners' permission and arguing this is protected by US fair use laws, which is incorrect - as the late AI researcher Suchir Balaji explained in this other article: https://suchir.net/fair_use.html https://suchir.net/fair_use.html
- almosthere 1y ago
  Yeah, that's literally the title of the article,and the premise of the first paragraph.
  - Retric 1y ago
    The first paragraph isn’t arguing that this copying will lead to piracy. It’s referring to court cases where people are trying to argue LLM’s themselves are copyright infringing.
  - pera 1y ago
    It's not literally the title of the article, nor the premise of its first paragraph, but since this was your interpretation I wonder if there is a misunderstanding around the term "piracy", which I believe is normally defined as the unauthorized reproduction of works, not a synonym for copyright infringement, which is a more broad concept.
- cultureulterior 1y ago
  It's not clear that it's incorrect.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 1y ago
    I’ve yet to read an actual argument defending commercial LLM’s as fair use based on existing (edit:legal) criteria.
delusional 1y ago
> No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book. You don't get to say that. Copyright protects the author of a work, but does not bind them to enforce it in any instance. Unlike a trademark, a copyright holder does not lose their protection by allowing unlicensed usage. It is wholly at the copyright holders discretion to decide which usages they allow and which they do not.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Of their exact work, sure, but Cliff notes exist for many books and don't infringe copyright.
lucianbr 1y ago
> some massive new avenue to piracy So it's fine as long as it's old piracy? How did you arrive to that conclusion?
7bit 1y ago
> let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy. No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book. You are completely missing the point. Have you read the actual article, because piracy isn't mention a single time.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
Also copyright should never trump privacy. That the New York Times with their lawsuit can force OpenAI to store all user prompts is a severe problem. I dislike OpenAI, but the lawsuits around copyrights are ridiculous. Most non-primitive art has had an inspiration somewhere. I don't see this as too different in how AIs learn.
sReinwald 1y ago
You're attacking a strawman. Nobody's claiming LLMs are a new piracy vector or that people will use ChatGPT, Llama or Claude instead of buying Harry Potter. The issue here is that tech companies systematically copied millions of copyrighted works to build commercial products worth billions, without reembursing the people who made their products possible in the first place. The research shows Llama literally memorized 42% of Harry Potter - not simply "learned from it," but can reproduce it verbatim. That's 1) not transformative and 2) clear evidence of copyright infringement. By your logic, the existence of torrents would make it perfectly acceptable for someone to download pirated movies and charge people to stream them. "Piracy already exists" isn't a defense, and it especially shouldn't be for companies worth billions. But you bet your ass that if I built a commercial Netflix competitor built on top of systematic copyright violations, I'd be sued into the dirt faster than I can say "billion dollar valuation". Aaron Swartz faced 35 years in prison and ultimately took his own life over downloading academic papers that were largely publicly funded. He wasn't selling them, he wasn't building a commercial product worth billions of dollars - he was trying to make knowledge accessible. Meanwhile, these AI companies like Meta systematically ingested copyrighted works at an industrial scale to build products worth billions. Why does an individual face life-destroying prosecution for far less, while trillion dollar companies get to negotiate in civil court after building empires on others' works? And why are you defending them? Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm far from a copyright maximalist. I've long believed that copyright terms - especially decades after creators' deaths - have become excessive. But whatever your stance on copyright ultimately is, the rules should apply equally to individuals like Aaron and multi-billion dollar corporations. You cannot seriously use the fact that individuals may pirate a book (which is illegal) as an ethical or legal defense for corporations doing the same thing at an industrial scale for profit.
panzi 1y ago
Everything you mentioned can simply be deleted. You can't really delete this from the "brain" of the LLM if a court orders you to do so, you have to re-train the LLM, which is costly. That's the problem I see.
blks 1y ago
Problem is that it copies much more work than just harry potter, including yours if you ever shared it (even under copy-left license) and makes money off it.
sieabahlpark 1y ago
[dead]
up2isomorphism 1y ago
It is actually much worse than piracy. I would much prefer a complete pirate copy of my creation to a half baked one.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  It's kind of a no-win situation for creators, as their work is bastardized and name divorced from all meaning it might have as a creator in relation to zombie necroposts sprung to life. One's own right to be identified as a creator is made meaningless in relation to such a creation that they didn't directly create. AI are apocalyptic plague locusts that convert coal to droll; AI are alienation demons driving human mothers and fathers against their own estranged reanimated lifeless intellectual prodigal child Frankensteins.

by paxys 1y ago

aprilthird2021 1y ago

> let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy. No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book. Well, luckily the article points out what people are actually alleging: > There are actually three distinct theories of how training a model on copyrighted works could infringe copyright: > Training on a copyrighted work is inherently infringing because the training process involves making a digital copy of the work. > The training process copies information from the training data into the model, making the model a derivative work under copyright law. > Infringement occurs when a model generates (portions of) a copyrighted work. None of those claim that these models are a substitute to buying the books. That's not what the plaintiffs are alleging. Infringing on a copyright is not only a matter of privacy (piracy is one of many ways to infringe copyright)

paxys 1y ago
People aren't alleging this, the author of the article is.
theK 1y ago
I think that last scenario seems to be the most problematic. Technically it is the same thing that piracy via torrent does, distributing a small piece of a copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent.

OtherShrezzing 1y ago

I think the argument is less about piracy and more that the model(s output) is a derivative work of Harry Potter, and the rights holder should be paid accordingly when it’s reproduced.

paxys 1y ago
That may be relevant in the NYT vs OpenAI case, since NYT was supposedly able to reproduce entire articles in ChatGPT. Here Llama is predicting one sentence at a time when fed the previous one, with 50% accuracy, for 42% of the book. That can easily be written off as fair use.
- gpm 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure books.google.com does the exact same with much better reliability... and the US courts found that to be fair use. (Agreeing with parent comment)
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    If there is a circuit split between it and NYT vs OAI, the Google Books ruling (in the famously tech-friendly ninth circuit) may also find itself under review.
- echelon 1y ago
  > Here Llama is predicting one sentence at a time when fed the previous one, with 50% accuracy, for 42% of the book. That can easily be written off as fair use. Is that fair use, or is that compression of the verbatim source?
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    It doesn't let you recover the text without knowing it in advance, so no. You can't in particular iterate it sentence by sentence; you're unlikely to go past sentence 2 this way before it starts giving you back it's own ideas. The whole thing is a sleigh of hand, basically. There's 42% of the book there, in tiny pieces, which you can only identify if you know what you're looking for. The model itself does not.

eviks 1y ago

Let's also not pretend that "massive new" is the only relevant issue

choppaface 1y ago

A key idea premise is that LLMs will probably replace search engines and re-imagine the online ad economy. So today is a key moment for content creators to re-shape their business model, and that can include copyright law (as much or more as the DMCA change). Another key point is that you might download a Llama model and implicitly get a ton of copyright-protected content. Versus with a search engine you’re just connected to the source making it available. And would the LLM deter a full purchase? If the LLM gives you your fill for free, then maybe yes. Or, maybe it’s more like a 30-second preview of a hit single, which converts into a $20 purchase of the full album. Best to sue the LLM provider today and then you can get some color on the actual consumer impact through legal discovery or similar means.

BobbyTables2 1y ago

Indeed but since when is a blatantly derived work only using 50% of a copyrighted work without permission a paragon of copyright compliance? Music artists get in trouble for using more than a sample without permission — imagine if they just used 45% of a whole song instead… I’m amazed AI companies haven’t been sued to oblivion yet. This utter stupidity only continues because we named a collection of matrices “Artificial Intelligence” and somehow treat it as if it were a sentient pet. Amassing troves of copyrighted works illegally into a ZIP file wouldn’t be allowed. The fact that the meaning was compressed using “Math” makes everyone stop thinking because they don’t understand “Math”.

colechristensen 1y ago
>Amassing troves of copyrighted works illegally into a ZIP file wouldn’t be allowed. The fact that the meaning was compressed using “Math” makes everyone stop thinking because they don’t understand “Math”. LLMs are in reality the artifacts of lossy compression of significant chunks of all of the text ever produced by humanity. The "lossy" quality makes them able to predict new text "accurately" as a result. >compressed using “Math” This is every compression algorithm.
Dylan16807 1y ago
> a blatantly derived work only using 50% of a copyrighted work without permission What's the work here? If it's the output of the LLM, you have to feed in the entire book to make it output half a book so on an ethical level I'd say it's not an issue. If you start with a few sentences, you'll get back less than you put in. If the work is the LLM itself, something you don't distribute is much less affected by copyright. Go ahead and play entire songs by other artists during your jam sessions.
yorwba 1y ago
Music artists get in trouble for using more than a sample from other music artists without permission because their work is in direct competition with the work they're borrowing from. A ZIP file of a book is also in direct competition of the book, because you could open the ZIP file and read it instead of the book. A model that can take 50 tokens and give you a greater than 50% probability for the 50 next tokens 42% of the time is not in direct competition with the book, since starting from the beginning you'll lose the plot fairly quickly unless you already have the full book, and unlike music sampling from other music, the model output isn't good enough to read it instead of the book.

fishcrackers 1y ago

[dead]

zephyr9 1y ago

You were so close! The takeaway is not that LlmS represent a bottomless tar pit of piracy (they do) but that someone can immediately perform the task 58% better without the AI than with it. This is nothing more than “look what the clever computer can do.”

abtinf 1y ago

You really don't see the difference between Google indexing the content of third parties and directly hosting/distributing the content itself?

Zambyte 1y ago
Where are they putting any blame on Google here?
- abtinf 1y ago
  Where did I say they were?
  - Zambyte 1y ago
    When you juxtaposed Google indexing with third parties hosting the content...?
imgabe 1y ago
Hosting model weights is not hosting / distributing the content.
- abtinf 1y ago
  Of course it is. It's just a form of compression. If I train an autoencoder on an image, and distribute the weights, that would obviously be the same as distributing the content. Just because the content is commingled with lots of other content doesn't make it disappear. Besides, where did the sections of text from the input works that show up in the output text come from? Divine inspiration? God whispering to the machine?
  - imgabe 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - 1y ago

timeon 1y ago

Is this whataboutism? Anyway, it is not the same. While one points you to pirated source on specific request, other use it to creating other content not just on direct request. As it was part of training data. Nihilists would then point out that 'people do the same' but they don't as we do not have same capabilities of processing the content.

TGower 1y ago

People aren't buying Harry Potter action figures as a subtitute for buying the book either, but copyright protects creators from other people swooping in and using their work in other mediums. There is obviously a huge market demand for high quality data for training LLMs, Meta just spent 15 billion on a data labeling company. Companies training LLMs on copyrighted material without permission are doing that as a substitue for obtaining a license from the creator for doing so in the same way that a pirate downloading a torrent is a substitue for getting an ebook license.

ritz_labringue 1y ago
Harry Potter action figures trade almost entirely on J. K. Rowling’s expressive choices. Every unlicensed toy competes head‑to‑head with the licensed one and slices off a share of a finite pot of fandom spending. Copyright law treats that as classic market substitution and rightfully lets the author police it. Dropping the novels into a machine‑learning corpus is a fundamentally different act. The text is not being resold, and the resulting model is not advertised as “official Harry Potter.” The books are just statistical nutrition. One ingredient among millions. Much like a human writer who reads widely before producing new work. No consumer is choosing between “Rowling’s novel” and “the tokens her novel contributed to an LLM,” so there’s no comparable displacement of demand. In economic terms, the merch market is rivalrous and zero‑sum; the training market is non‑rivalrous and produces no direct substitute good. That asymmetry is why copyright doctrine (and fair‑use case law) treats toy knock‑offs and corpus building very differently.

vrighter 1y ago

So? Am I allowed to also ignore certain laws if I can prove others have also ignored them?

pera 1y ago

> let's not pretend that an LLM that autocompletes a couple lines from harry potter with 50% accuracy is some massive new avenue to piracy No one is claiming this. The corporations developing LLMs are doing so by sampling media without their owners' permission and arguing this is protected by US fair use laws, which is incorrect - as the late AI researcher Suchir Balaji explained in this other article: https://suchir.net/fair_use.html https://suchir.net/fair_use.html

almosthere 1y ago
Yeah, that's literally the title of the article,and the premise of the first paragraph.
- Retric 1y ago
  The first paragraph isn’t arguing that this copying will lead to piracy. It’s referring to court cases where people are trying to argue LLM’s themselves are copyright infringing.
- pera 1y ago
  It's not literally the title of the article, nor the premise of its first paragraph, but since this was your interpretation I wonder if there is a misunderstanding around the term "piracy", which I believe is normally defined as the unauthorized reproduction of works, not a synonym for copyright infringement, which is a more broad concept.
cultureulterior 1y ago
It's not clear that it's incorrect.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 1y ago
  I’ve yet to read an actual argument defending commercial LLM’s as fair use based on existing (edit:legal) criteria.

delusional 1y ago

> No one is using this as a substitute for buying the book. You don't get to say that. Copyright protects the author of a work, but does not bind them to enforce it in any instance. Unlike a trademark, a copyright holder does not lose their protection by allowing unlicensed usage. It is wholly at the copyright holders discretion to decide which usages they allow and which they do not.

fragmede 1y ago
Of their exact work, sure, but Cliff notes exist for many books and don't infringe copyright.

lucianbr 1y ago

> some massive new avenue to piracy So it's fine as long as it's old piracy? How did you arrive to that conclusion?

7bit 1y ago

raxxorraxor 1y ago

Also copyright should never trump privacy. That the New York Times with their lawsuit can force OpenAI to store all user prompts is a severe problem. I dislike OpenAI, but the lawsuits around copyrights are ridiculous. Most non-primitive art has had an inspiration somewhere. I don't see this as too different in how AIs learn.

sReinwald 1y ago

You're attacking a strawman. Nobody's claiming LLMs are a new piracy vector or that people will use ChatGPT, Llama or Claude instead of buying Harry Potter. The issue here is that tech companies systematically copied millions of copyrighted works to build commercial products worth billions, without reembursing the people who made their products possible in the first place. The research shows Llama literally memorized 42% of Harry Potter - not simply "learned from it," but can reproduce it verbatim. That's 1) not transformative and 2) clear evidence of copyright infringement. By your logic, the existence of torrents would make it perfectly acceptable for someone to download pirated movies and charge people to stream them. "Piracy already exists" isn't a defense, and it especially shouldn't be for companies worth billions. But you bet your ass that if I built a commercial Netflix competitor built on top of systematic copyright violations, I'd be sued into the dirt faster than I can say "billion dollar valuation". Aaron Swartz faced 35 years in prison and ultimately took his own life over downloading academic papers that were largely publicly funded. He wasn't selling them, he wasn't building a commercial product worth billions of dollars - he was trying to make knowledge accessible. Meanwhile, these AI companies like Meta systematically ingested copyrighted works at an industrial scale to build products worth billions. Why does an individual face life-destroying prosecution for far less, while trillion dollar companies get to negotiate in civil court after building empires on others' works? And why are you defending them? Edit: And for what it's worth, I'm far from a copyright maximalist. I've long believed that copyright terms - especially decades after creators' deaths - have become excessive. But whatever your stance on copyright ultimately is, the rules should apply equally to individuals like Aaron and multi-billion dollar corporations. You cannot seriously use the fact that individuals may pirate a book (which is illegal) as an ethical or legal defense for corporations doing the same thing at an industrial scale for profit.

panzi 1y ago

Everything you mentioned can simply be deleted. You can't really delete this from the "brain" of the LLM if a court orders you to do so, you have to re-train the LLM, which is costly. That's the problem I see.

blks 1y ago

Problem is that it copies much more work than just harry potter, including yours if you ever shared it (even under copy-left license) and makes money off it.

sieabahlpark 1y ago

[dead]

up2isomorphism 1y ago

It is actually much worse than piracy. I would much prefer a complete pirate copy of my creation to a half baked one.

aspenmayer 1y ago
It's kind of a no-win situation for creators, as their work is bastardized and name divorced from all meaning it might have as a creator in relation to zombie necroposts sprung to life. One's own right to be identified as a creator is made meaningless in relation to such a creation that they didn't directly create. AI are apocalyptic plague locusts that convert coal to droll; AI are alienation demons driving human mothers and fathers against their own estranged reanimated lifeless intellectual prodigal child Frankensteins.