WotC Would you buy WotC products produced or enhanced with AI?

[Luxor the Moonprince]

No, but you should learn how creativity and inspiration work and how they're completely different from how generative AI works.

From a customer’s point of view that doesn’t matter. People buy what they like. And that is the only thing that matters, market.

 

[Lanefan]

When you say "hey, that's a cool sound" and then get together with your friends, you're not going to create a perfect copy of that sound, no matter how hard you try. First off, you didn't hear that sound in the exact same way it was produced--you heard it through the distortions caused by the radio and the structure of your ears and skull. And when you perform it, the tune will be changed by your imperfect memories, your skill level, your particular instruments, your ability to keep rhythm, the acoustics of your current location, and the agility and strength behind your hands and breath (depending on what instrument you play). Even if you get the sheet music and the original, it will still be at least a little different from the original. But most likely, you're going to be putting your own spin on this piece, even if only unconsciously, unless you make an effort to copy the music as exactly as possible. And even then, it will still be a little bit different.

Which only means that if my intent is to match that sound exactly I'm not doing it right. For better or worse, that's where technology has the advantage.

That said, even if I end up putting my own spin on it it's still based on something I heard and processed. In that way, I don't see the human process and the AI process as being very different: input ==> process ==> output.

What is different, for the time being at least, is that I could still come up with an entirely new song or sound not (consciously) based on anything I'd heard before; and AI can't do that. But as I said above, give it 25 years...

Scraping is simply copying a lot of data at once. It's not learning or being inspired by what it's told to scrape. It's just converting it all into ones and zeroes and tagging it for later use by someone else who then uses the right tags in their prompt.

To me that's just the same process as my personal sound-scraping example only on a vastly bigger scale, and with all three steps of the process being done by someone or something not the end user.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It doesn't need to be a "significant number" of courts. You only have to be found guilty in one to be, by the law, guilty.

Within the confine of the jurisdiction, yes.

A photographer's claim of copyright infringement because his pictures were used in the LAION-5B dataset (used for training some of the earliest models) was dismissed in late 2014 (openJur) in Hamburg on the basis that, while the photographer was holding IP rights on his photographs and explicitely mentionned that he opted-out on AI training, LAION is a non-profit, therefore it is not guilty, under the TDM, of copyright infringement when scraping the web, even if the end result can be used to train AI commercially and half the LAION team was working for Stability AI.

It is probably not going to establish that web scraping is allowed everywhere, much like a single court finding someone guilty isn't enough to determine that something is illegal in general. The aforementioned ruling though, enough to say that the claim "it is illegal" is wrong, given the absolute wording. It may be that the claim "It is illegal in place X" is still true, though, and even possibly for a lot of values of X. There is no reason for two societies to make the same determinations on what is legal and illegal. We can't even agree on very basic things, let alone the precise delimitation of copyright.

 

[Morrus]

The aforementioned ruling though, enough to say that the claim "it is illegal" is wrong, given the absolute wording. It may be that the claim "It is illegal in place X" is still true, though, and even possibly for a lot of values of X. There is no reason for two societies to make the same determinations on what is legal and illegal.

All you’ve said there is that it is wrong to call anything illegal. For the life of me, I can't see how that level of pedantry adds to the discussion.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

All you’ve said there is that it is wrong to call anything illegal. For the life of me, I can't see how that level of pedantry adds to the discussion.

It adds in that saying "it is illegal" isn't a convincing or even relevant argument for the people who live in place where it is, indeed, legal. It is either a lack of consideration for others or simply an oversight. I give people the benefit of the doubt and I remind them that not all of the people they talk to live in the same environment as them.

 

[Morrus]

To me that's just the same process as my personal sound-scraping example only on a vastly bigger scale

People have told you over and over again in this thread that the way a human being and the way an AI work are completely different. You keep repeating this. Is it a "if I say it enough times it will become true" situation?

 

[Morrus]

With the thread descending to a handful of people saying 'yes it is', ' no it isn't, 'yes it is', and others fighting over the definition of the word 'illegal', and posts being reported left, right, and centre, I don't think it has any utility left. Frankly, these identical threads with the same actors repeating the same things for 80+ pages are getting pretty tedious. Thread closed.