gregorum

No, you didn’t. All that you proved is that you didn’t understand what the link said. But that’s what I’ve been saying over and over.

Also voting with two accounts is pathetic

The fact that you’re so insecure that you think that’s what’s happening is what is pathetic, and so is the fact that you’ve been crying about this for two days.

Just sad.

You already provided the evidence in your link. It’s not my fault you don’t understand. Also, it’s not my job to educate you, nor to soothe your bruised ego.

I recommend some ice cream. Perhaps that will make you feel better.

I already gave it to you in a single sentence:

“You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Even that was too difficult for you to understand.

Correction: you do not comprehend what you are cherry-picking. Your ignorance and failure to understand to not make you right.

The entire article explains that’s how it works. I’m sorry it’s just over your head.

OK, if you think what you just said made sense, then you either didn’t read the link you just posted or you clearly didn’t understand it. And you certainly have no clue what you’re talking about.

But you’re certainly helping to make my point for me

Lol… I hope you didn’t sprain something with all those mental gymnastics. In the meantime, perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more on AI, LLV’s, and, perhaps, just a little bit on art.

Some safeguards have been added which curtail certain direct misbehavior, but it is still capable - by your own admission - of doing it. And it still profits from the unlicensed use of copyrighted works by using such material for its training data. Because what it is producing is not a new and unique creative work, it is a composite of copyrighted work. That is not the same thing.

And if you are comparing LLMs and hammers, you’re just proving how you fundamentally misunderstand what LLMs are and how they work. It’s a false equivalence.

And the same can be said about generative AI

not in any legally reasonable way, and certainly not by anyone who understands how AI (or, really, LLM models) work or what art is.

If it’s not redistributed copyrighted material, it’s not theft

but that’s exactly what OpenAI did-- they used distributed, copyrighted works, used them as training data, and spit out result, some of which even contained word-for-word repetitions of the author’s source material.

AI, unlike a human, cannot create unique works of art. it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms, but nothing resembling the truly unique creative process of a living human. Sadly, too many people simply lack the ability to comprehend the difference.

Mel Brooks’s works are protected under the Fair Use provisions for satire under the DMCA. Lucas never copied anything directly, but, if pressed, much of his work is “heavily inspired” by works in the public domain and/or could be argued to be “derivative works”, also covered by Fair Use provisions in the DMCA, although any claim of copyright violation would be pretty difficult to make in the first place.

It’s different when you earn profit from another person’s work.

lol, copying isn’t theft. You already had to download a copy just to view it. That’s how websites work.