Those analogies don’t make any sense.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.
LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.
Who’s labor?
Call me crazy but I mess my fries up and eat them with a fork.
I wouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Following aesthetic trends is just being savvy, it’s not necessarily compensating for something.
Minority Don’t Report
MusicBrainz Picard
Amazing music tagger and batch renamer, for those of us who still have all our music as files.
Okay but starting a lesson on Photoshop with the circle tool is like starting a lesson on Word with inserting a table. If working with abstract shapes is your modus operandi something like Illustrator or Inkscape makes a lot more sense as a tool.
Think this post confuses veganism and vegetarianism. Also it’s chemicals all the way down. Those spices? Made of chemicals.
Those alternative burgers are actually pretty tasty but also very heavy because they are imitating beef. For American fare I’d generally prefer a sandwich with deli style meats made out of tofu or seitan, or a bean burger.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.