4 ms·

What about a “right to create act” giving people the right to create things and not have their creation be ingested to train ai for billion dollar companies?

ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
Some sort of pre-emptive auto-opt-AI't. It's ridiculous that AIco's arguments are dwindling down to "it's not copyright infringement to ingest others' work and make 'derivatives' [which often are identical to original authors' works]." ---- We desperately need younger politicians, who can not only keep up with information more sharply (i.e. aren't legally decades-retireable), but also are of the age where their own children are being affected by government re-funding flows away from youth/education/future. At this point I'm willing to concede that our future probably has companies' individual LLM/genAI products competing against one-another, as digital politicians ["the digital pimp, hard at work... we have needs"--Matrix' Mouse]. Nobody knows how either flesh nor silicon congressmen work, inside; but I think the latter could act more human[e]ly...
- PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
  Do you believe that for younger people this question (about derivativeness) is clearly settled? If so, how?
  - ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
    I would hypothesize that younger people are less-inclined to feel guilty about using pirate TV services. I think they're also more invested in the future, and aware of dangerous technology's pre-eminence.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
      OK, but what about "LLM-generated work is clearly derivative of the training material" ?
      - ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
        I've tried a few times to understand what you're asking. I think you're asking "is it intellectual property theft to train LLMs on artists' portfolios, without their permission?" I would answer that this is both unethical AND illegal (i.e copyright violation), but kids whom pirate music regularly would pirate both music and art, without regard. ---- If your question is something else, please write it differently, below:

ProllyInfamous 7mo ago

Some sort of pre-emptive auto-opt-AI't. It's ridiculous that AIco's arguments are dwindling down to "it's not copyright infringement to ingest others' work and make 'derivatives' [which often are identical to original authors' works]." ---- We desperately need younger politicians, who can not only keep up with information more sharply (i.e. aren't legally decades-retireable), but also are of the age where their own children are being affected by government re-funding flows away from youth/education/future. At this point I'm willing to concede that our future probably has companies' individual LLM/genAI products competing against one-another, as digital politicians ["the digital pimp, hard at work... we have needs"--Matrix' Mouse]. Nobody knows how either flesh nor silicon congressmen work, inside; but I think the latter could act more human[e]ly...

PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
Do you believe that for younger people this question (about derivativeness) is clearly settled? If so, how?
- ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
  I would hypothesize that younger people are less-inclined to feel guilty about using pirate TV services. I think they're also more invested in the future, and aware of dangerous technology's pre-eminence.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
    OK, but what about "LLM-generated work is clearly derivative of the training material" ?
    - ProllyInfamous 7mo ago
      I've tried a few times to understand what you're asking. I think you're asking "is it intellectual property theft to train LLMs on artists' portfolios, without their permission?" I would answer that this is both unethical AND illegal (i.e copyright violation), but kids whom pirate music regularly would pirate both music and art, without regard. ---- If your question is something else, please write it differently, below: