...unless you can point to the *specific work* that was taken from *without knowing how it was made*.

In other words, just because you train an AI on a bunch of works, it doesn't follow that most of what the AI makes is violating copyright or plagiarizing or whatever. A lot of people are fundamentally pissed off because they don't feel special, or else they wouldn't be yelling at AI users in hobbyist communities who aren't affecting anyone's livelihood.

I have a lot of code out on github, which LLMs have trained on. I have absolutely no right to tell them that the AI can't learn from my code, because my IP rights don't extend that far, and that goes for art as well. I also think it's great that AI enables people, on their local computers, to do something that until very recently was very hard to do.

No, you have a copyright, which allows you to control redistribution of your specific work. You do not, nor should you, have the right to prevent people from learning from it. If I want to disassemble Windows and learn from the code, I'm 100% allowed to do that.

> You can generate images with signatures from the works that were copied, without attribution.

I've never actually seen this happen. What actually happens is that the AI has generalized on what a signature is and figured out that the name of the artist often appears in cursive down in the bottom corner of the image, so it writes a name down there (an artist's name, if someone tells it to make an image "by so-and-so"), but I've never seen a case where the signature matches the signature of the artist to any degree.

The existence of signatures absolutely is not proof that it's copying anything, because the signatures themselves aren't even copies.

Copyright allows transformative works.

Also, you're using weasel-y wording here. It does train on entire works, but those entire works aren't saved in the AI itself (this is mathematically impossible giving how many works an AI trains on versus the size of the AI. When it trains on an entire work, it absolutely does generalize on style, concepts, and ideas. Only if the entire work is trained many times over does it memorize that work.

That's what the article is going for, anyway. They want readers to feel like AI is fundamentally insecure, when that's not what happened here.

Fuck making people go to the office. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy, and it causes pollution and more traffic and reduces productivity, all so micromanaging twats can feel good about themselves.

> You have no idea what difference it will make in their lives.

It will make absolutely zero difference because an image occurring a single time in a five billion image training dataset doesn't do shit. They're in a lot more danger from a human photoshopping the image directly.

It's okay. Execs really only think in buzzwords anyway. They won't accomplish anything.

Seriously. Wake me up when somebody assembles a team of researchers and engineers to serve as their advisory council. I'd invest in that company.

whew, he used the wrong word, so I don't have to think about what he said.

That was a close one!

How many years all together have the Republicans spent investigating Hillary now?

> "illicit streaming sites such as myflixer and projectfreetv..."

Got it, thanks!

The AI part *doesn't matter* because using AI doesn't automagically make something plagiarism.

This isn't a shame at all.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless of whether there's AI involved, and this drives that point home. The tools you use don't have anything to do with it. You *can* plagiarize with AI, but just because it trained on something doesn't mean that everything the AI creates is plagiarizing that thing.

Thinking that everything AI does is plagiarism tracks extremely well with very fundamental misunderstandings about how it actually works.

...is call all of these people "pathetic" and "gross" and tell them to "get a girlfriend". That should increase their self-confidence and help them interact with real people.