Humans with photographic memopry are for sure copyright violators as soon as they perform those memories publicly. And that is legally what this is about. LLAMA may privately hallucinate as much as it likes, but this is about ther version offered publicly.
Indeed. The fascinating thing about all these AI fanboi idiots is that they do not seem to ask AI these questions. They would get told the same thing.
The law is already in place, you are just too ignorant to know it. Humans get an exception for memorization as that does legally not count as data processing. But as soon as a human publicly performs a copyrighted work from memory, they must have a license. Look up "Happy Birthday"
No. If it is unintentional, you may escape punishment, but you still must stop doing it.
Completely immaterial. If you build a machine that then plagiarizes, you are plagiarizing. Seriously, why do you AI moron fanbois do not ask your fake God? ChatGPT will readily tell you that.
Quoting a book isn't plagiarism.
Wrong. I get that you are uneducated, but look up "fair use". For quoting a book to _not_ be plagiarism, the quote must fall under fair use. Quoting 42% of a book is certainly plagiarism and doing so commercially without a license is a crime.
Indeed. And the house of cards begins to crumble.
You are right, get legal advice, the cost can be passed on to them anyway.
AIUI, your costs can't (or couldn't) generally be passed on when using the small claims system. Has that changed? It's been a while since I went through the process, so it's possible that my information here is out of date.
There is obviously a personal data angle here. There might also be a defamation angle if the system works as implied by TFS, since it appears that someone's reputation has been affected because someone else lied about them and this has demonstrably caused harm? If there was more than one relevant incident then there might also be a harassment angle.
Please be careful with that advice about requesting compensation in a Letter Before Action, though. There are fairly specific rules for what you can and can't claim under our system and just going in with claiming some arbitrary figure of a few thousand pounds in "compensation" for vague damages is far from guaranteed to get the result you're hoping for. If someone were serious about challenging this kind of behaviour, they might do better to consult with a real lawyer initially to understand what they might realistically achieve and what kinds of costs and risks would be involved.
No. You did not make that exact point and you fail to do so again. The thing is, the _specific_ context matters. And for an AI chatbot, that is "interactive" and _very_ similar to a text-based _real_ therapy session online. Which are a thing and which are legal as long as the therapist is licensed.
You alos completely fail to understand why therapists _need_ to be licensed. The thing is, every potential patient could just ask to see the license, by your "argument". But most people are not that capable. And hence offerting therapy without being licenced is a crime and claiming to be licensed without that bein true is a crime. And if a machine does that and claims to be licensed, and it it not a setting that is obviously fictional to an average or somewhat below average person (!), then the machine operator commits a crime.
Seriously. Stop claiming bullshit and start to think.
I think the problem that the two of you are having is that you do not understand how these "AI" algorithms work
Talk about being arrogant and clueless. I am well aware how they work. And if you had actually read my posintgs, you would know that. Calling these things a "tool" should be a gead giveaway already.
Actually, the bulk of the uranium reserves are solved in seawater. But, as it turns out, extraction ability and technology matters.
If you want to communicate, you have to play the same game everyone else is playing.
If you don't believe in rationality and reason, why go on a forum and try making reasonable arguments? Wouldn't "squid purple smiley-emoji" be just as convincing?
Yep, I have been wondering about that person. Maybe some mental disability at play here that prevents them from seeing this obvious thing? Or maybe "I can use reason but when you do it, it is just wrong"? There are enough assholes around that do not believe others should have the same rights as they do.
The long and the short of it is, if you deny reason, everything breaks down. First, you lose all technology, because STEM is completely dependent on reason. Second, you lose society. Maybe you can keep a small cult going, but that is essentially it. And third, you lose the ability to predict and that means massively smaller survival odds. It really is the stupid choice. Even the big destroyer of minds, religion, does it only in a limited and targeted fashion.
I don't disagree. But 20% is a very, very low estimate.
Thus proving the point by example.
Most people have faith in something. Since they didn't arrive at that faith by reason how would you expect to get them to change their mind using reason? You are really demanding they give priority to your faith in reason over their other faith.
And there I can stop reading, because you do not get it. Your simplistic and, frankly, stupid claim is that relying on rational reasoning is "faith". That is, obviously, a direct lie. Now, it is quite possible you are not smart enough to see that.
You do not have mail.
