Ukv

88 ms·

721.
by Ukv 3y ago
> Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing? If Photoshop was hosted online by Adobe, you would be free to do so. It's copy
722.
by Ukv 3y ago
> None of those arguments make sense. The output of AI absolutely does supersede the objects of the original creation. If it didn't, artists wouldn't care that they were no longer able to make a living. The question for transfo
723.
by Ukv 3y ago
> Fair use was intended for things like reviews, commentary, education, remixing, non-commercial use, and many other things "many other things" has included, for example, Google Books scanning millions of in-copyright books, st
724.
by Ukv 3y ago
> I never imagined it lying down nor do I see what that adds to the metaphor. I'd always interpreted it the same was as the author, meant to emphasise a long relatively flat period followed by a sudden upwards trend. I think likely
725.
by Ukv 3y ago
> If they cannot send a video over the internet The internet issues were when showing the video live over screen-sharing in the briefings. Cruise did send NHTSA a copy of the full video later the same day: > Just as the NHTSA meeting
726.
by Ukv 3y ago
Gatekeeper/notarization are intended to stop malware, which Unreal Engine is not. Apple may well have a valid business dispute (over another application on another platform), but it's an abuse of the system and control they have t
727.
by Ukv 3y ago
> I haven’t seen a single instance of them not notarizing something or revoking it for something that wasn’t actually malicious. Apple did threaten to cut off Epic's ability to notarize Unreal Engine[0], until ordered not to by the
728.
by Ukv 3y ago
> No, I don't generally think it's okay to profit off of the work of others without their consent. I'd argue that essentially all work based off the work of others. I can only draw a "car" better than a random gu
729.
by Ukv 3y ago
> I feel you are making my point for me and retreating to a more pragmatic position about defaults I'm unclear on what stance I've supposedly retreated from. My position is that an opt-out is not necessary under current US law,
730.
by Ukv 3y ago
> It brings potential audience their way, so most don’t make use of their _right_ to be de-listed. The Authors Guild lawsuit against Google Books ended in a 2015 ruling that Google Books is fair use and as such they don't have a r
731.
by Ukv 3y ago
I think wording like "browse the web privately", the disguise icon, and the name of "incognito" can very easily suggest that the purpose is hiding your identity from websites.
732.
by Ukv 3y ago
> and how that relates to how people work or “learn” is besides the point It is important (for the training and generation stages) to distinguish between whether the model copies the original works or merely infers information from them
733.
by Ukv 3y ago
My initial interpretation was that you're saying fair use is irrelevant to the situation because machine learning models aren't themselves legal persons. But, fair use doesn't solely apply to manual creation - use of traditio
734.
by Ukv 3y ago
> It's fine to use it for your personal projects, for research and education, etc. but it is not OK to use it for commercial endeavors. Say I train a machine vision model that, after having pretrained on ImageNet or similar, detects
735.
by Ukv 3y ago
Not sure why 15.ai has been down, but for the game I'd guess to keep down latency and API costs.
736.
by Ukv 3y ago
> Games where you manipulate other humans are still done in an "arcade" style (eg Among Us). They don't tend to be focused on realistic manipulation I don't think the scenario has to be any less fanciful with LLM NPCs
737.
by Ukv 3y ago
> Rewarding hyper-realistic manipulative behavior sounds like an exceptionally unethical way to apply LLMs Social deduction games where you lie and manipulate real players are already fairly popular. I don't think manipulating an NP
738.
by Ukv 3y ago
I think people 100% have the right to use this on their images, but: > simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use Currently it's generally infeasible to obtain licenses at the required scale. When attempting to d
739.
by Ukv 3y ago
Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) are already covered by it.
740.
by Ukv 3y ago
I think the big advantage an LLM has is that it can respond dynamically to whatever the player decides to do, rather than offering a few pre-determined choices and even then generally funnelling back towards one central path.
741.
by Ukv 3y ago
> who actually cares about holding proper conversations with NPCs instead of just moving on to the next bit of actual gameplay I think there's a lot of potential with LLMs that have two-way interaction with the game world. For examp
742.
by Ukv 3y ago
Going beyond tech demos, the indie game "Suck Up"[0] is the first really compelling implementation of LLM-powered NPCs I've seen. [0]: https://www.playsuckup.com/
743.
by Ukv 3y ago
> or residential ISPs: when everyone has silently agreed to a common level of base bullshit, customers won't move (because why move from a pile of cow dung to a pile of dog dung? it's all dung in the end) So, if I'm unders
744.
by Ukv 3y ago
> they just want to think it’s not possible As far as I'm aware, what you propose really isn't a solved issue. Most naive approaches you'd think might work are either infeasible or give chaotic nonsense results. Partial ma
745.
by Ukv 3y ago
> torrents didn't kill the movie industry because people still want to see movies on a big screen experience Given you believe the reason torrents didn't kill the movie industry is because people weren't satisfied with sma
746.
by Ukv 3y ago
True; consider the "it" in my question ("If I make a spam detector network, why should it not be covered by fair use?") as "my making (and usage) of the network".
747.
by Ukv 3y ago
> common sense suggests that the difference would be that a spam detector doesn't replace the products that it was trained on The extent to which it supplants the original work is one of the fair use considerations. I think it'
748.
by Ukv 3y ago
> Emphatically no they shouldn't. The capabilities are vastly different. Fair use should not apply to AI. Fair use applies even to use of traditional algorithms, like the thumbnailing/caching performed by search engines. If I m
749.
by Ukv 3y ago
> But as long as it needs to be trained on the work of humans it should not be allowed to displace those people it relied on to get to where it is. Simple as that. Do you feel the same way about tools like Google Translate?
750.
by Ukv 3y ago
Search engine caches work on an opt-out basis, which was found legal in Field v. Google Inc.

More ›