[squidbeak]

I agree. As far as copyrighted and artistic works go, I've never fully understood what the objection is. If the work is being remixed not copied then it surely falls under fair use? Meanwhile, if it creates something new in an artist's style, it's only doing what talented imitators routinely do. There's the economic argument. But if that's accepted, then for fairness it would have to be extended to every other profession which stands to be wiped out by AI, which would be daft.

New works in familiar styles are something I can't wait for. The idea that the best Beethoven symphony hasn't been composed yet, or that the best Basquiat hasn't been painted yet, or that if the tech ever gets far enough, Game of Thrones might actually be done properly with the same actors, is a pretty mouthwatering prospect. Also styles we haven't discovered, that AI can anticipate. How's it to do that without a full understanding of culture? Hobbling the delight it could bring generally for the sake of protected classes will just make the tech less human and a lot less exciting.

[wat10000]

If it's remixed then it would be a derivative work and you'd need permission from the original copyright holder, just like if you literally remixed a song, or made a movie based on a novel.

IMO the only reason there's even a question about whether LLMs can legally be trained on copyrighted works without permission is that the training is being done by (agents working on behalf of) rich people. If you or I scraped up every copyrighted work we could get our hands on without ever asking permission, trained an LLM on it, and then tried to sell access to the result? Just ask Aaron Swartz how that sort of thing goes, and his actions were orders of magnitude less.

Humans don't forget copyrighted material but we also don't normally memorize it. It takes substantial time and effort to be able to reproduce copyrighted material with just your brain.

[wizardforhire]

Mind if I ask a few questions? Whats your current address, dob, ssn or NINO or equivalent, your full legal name, mothers maiden name, fathers place of birth, mothers place of birth, country of origin, do you drive? Whats your license number? How about a bank? Could I have your account and routing number as well as the answers to any security questions? How about investments I’m gonna need your accounts and passwords for these as well…

> As far as copyrighted and artistic works go, I've never fully understood what the objection is … > But if that's accepted, then for fairness it would have to be extended to every other profession which stands to be wiped out by AI, which would be daft. … > Hobbling the delight it could bring generally for the sake of protected classes will just make the tech less human and a lot less exciting.

So let me get this straight, you want to ruin the livelihoods of everyone so you can have a fancier toy to play with?

When your life is ruined and can’t make a living you’ll have the answers you desire and understand the objections to why you can’t have fancier toys.

But heres the thing, and with the way the world is going atm, not being able to make a living is going to be the least of your and everyone else’s worries that feel the way you do if ya’ll get your way.

People don’t like having their livelihoods taken away, and when you threaten the livelihoods of their children… people tend towards violence.

I really wish there was a more polite way to put this. Alas what you’re proposing is all out war for what? A better game of thrones?

[squidbeak]

Violent artists with pitchforks, eh? Aside from their supposed predisposition to vengeful bloodlust, is there any other reason these protected classes should enjoy a different status to any other worker?