Sarah Silverman leads class-action lawsuit against ChatGPT creator

[doctorbadwolf]

Hear hear.

As someone with mixed heritage children, I love the fact that no one is screaming at them for using the wrong toilet. Which, not all that long ago, they would have been.

Is everything peaches and cream? Oh, of course not. But, it is a lot better than it used to be.

Exactly. And like, not just in the West. Child mortality, violent death, forced marriage, human trafficking, illiteracy, starvation, and a host of other evils, are all dramatically less prevalent on every continent.

It still sucks to get sick in a lot of the world, but a helluva lot less than even 20 years ago.

There's no dichotomy, I see it as a steady and gradual decline over time. I'd include my own generation in that decline, and actually put a lot of the issues I see in the world with my own age group and demographic.

Cool for your nephew though, I hope they enjoyed it.

Well, I doubt I can convince you otherwise so I’ll just leave it that. We disagree, fair enough.

And yeah they had a great time. Gen Z seems to be spending more time than my peers did outside (those of us who had access to AIM and cat videos at least)

 

[ART!]

Yet you live in a society.

EDIT: To clarify.

I grew up without a computer. So did everyone in the generation preceding mine. We grew up without forums to waste our time on.

We didnt need them, but yes "we live in society, curious" we have them now.

As referenced earlier, we as a species have said for a long time 'its going to get worse' and for many it has. So this is just one more step. AI is not going to improve lives. Its going to get worse. We already have computers, and the absolute abyss of social media with which we can debate the finer points of life.

Is it an improvement or would we be better off learning some skills at the lake? I'd take the lake, personally.

Thanks for the excuse to post what I've thought about posting this whole thread:

 

[MoonSong]

Agreed. A computer Reading the image necessitates a temporary copy. But from everything I’m reading the image isn’t actually stored as I had previously thought. The LLM is simply a large probability distribution across millions or billions or more of points. That’s what ultimately gets stored

It isn't stored, just copied, converted to machine readable format, tagged, then converted into numbers that are then combined with other numbers from other artworks and that is stored.

 

[MoonSong]

Is it legal for a musician to memorize music and play it? What if he then crafts something influenced by it? Are you going to sue him for committing all those notes to memory (copying it to his brain?) Lets not discriminate against silicon based memory.

But we cab discriminate against sillicon memory. That is why AI output cannot be copyrighted. Heck not even non-human animal's art can be copyrighted.

 

[FrogReaver]

It isn't stored, just copied, converted to machine readable format, tagged, then converted into numbers that are then combined with other numbers from other artworks and that is stored.

As I said… The probability distribution is stored.

 

[MoonSong]

As I said… The probability distribution is stored.

Is a compressed and encrypted file still a copy? It is still a math tranaformation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is a compressed and encrypted file still a copy? It is still a math tranaformation.

I’m sorry you didn’t understand my post but it’s obvious you are saying the same thing I did.

 

[billd91]

Is it legal for a musician to memorize music and play it? What if he then crafts something influenced by it? Are you going to sue him for committing all those notes to memory (copying it to his brain?) Lets not discriminate against silicon based memory.

It is, in fact, legal for a musician to play someone else's song - but that doesn't get him (or the venue where he performed it) off the hook for paying the royalties for it to the composer.
And as far as influence - there are legions of cases where one song influences another. Incorporating a notable portion of it, however, leads to someone having a likely unintended writing credit - which also leads to royalties. Just ask Sean Combs how much that cost him.

 

[Ryujin]

It is, in fact, legal for a musician to play someone else's song - but that doesn't get him (or the venue where he performed it) off the hook for paying the royalties for it to the composer.
And as far as influence - there are legions of cases where one song influences another. Incorporating a notable portion of it, however, leads to someone having a likely unintended writing credit - which also leads to royalties. Just ask Sean Combs how much that cost him.

Or, if you are too "influenced" by another song, you end up in the same situation as George Harrison.

 

[dragoner]

It's the blank cassette fight redux '23 ...