I really like their business model, but unfortunately did not really use curiositystream in the month I tried out the superbundle. Some of the documentaries were alright, but it wasn’t really my thing. I may return to nebula if google figures out a way to axe adblockers for good, though
Yep. I doubt there were that many people using adblockers back when you only had one skippable 15 second ad at the beginning of a video. But when you have 1-2 ads every 10 minutes, on top off all the premium popups, it’s just unbearable.
I think the main difference between derivative/inspired works created by humans and those created by AI is the presence of “creative effort.” This is something that humans can do, but narrow AI cannot.
Even bland statements humans make about nonfiction facts have some creativity in them, even if the ideas are non-copyrightable (e.g., I cannot copyright the fact that the declaration of independence was signed in 1776. However, the exact way I present this fact can be copyrightable- a timeline, chart, table, passage of text, etc. could all be copyrightable).
“Creative effort” is a hard thing to pin down, since “effort” alone does not qualify (e.g., I can’t copyright a phone directory even if I spent a lot of effort collecting names/numbers, since simply putting names and numbers alongside each other in alphabetical isn’t particularly creative or original). I don’t think there’s really a bright line test for what constitutes as “creative,” but it doesn’t take a lot. Randomness doesn’t qualify either (e.g., I can’t just pick a random stone out of a stream and declare copyright on it, even if it’s a very unique-looking rock).
Narrow AI is ultimately just a very complex algorithm created based on training data. This is oversimplifying a lot of steps involved, but there isn’t anything “creative” or “subjective” involved in how an LLM creates passages of text. At most, I think you could say that the developers of the AI have copyright over the initial code used to make that AI. I think that the outputs of some functional AI could be copyrightable by its developers, but I don’t think any machine-learning AI would really qualify if it’s the sole source of the work.
Personally, I think that the results of what an AI like Midjourney or ChatGPT creates would fall under public domain. Most of the time, it’s removed enough from the source material that it’s not really derivative anymore. However, I think if someone were to prompt one of these AI to create a work that explicitly mimics that of an author or artist, that could be infringement.
IANAL, this is just one random internet user’s opinion.
USA has been doing this since the cold War. Business as usual, but still important to keep track of
I wonder if this will go differently from Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ChatGPT likely qualifies as “transformative”, but I’m uncertain if it qualifies as a “public service” or not given that it has a paid tier. How privacy/personal information ties into this should also be interesting.
I imagine a lot of that is due to issues with liability. If a journalist says “X did Y”, that opens them up to lawsuits. If they say “A alleges that X did Y”, then that allows them to report without fear of a lawsuit.
The end of the article did talk about who may have sent them out there.
Two of the survivors said Greek authorities had asked them, through interpreters and lawyers, to give evidence against the nine Egyptians who have been accused of people trafficking.
But all four survivors said the nine Egyptians were passengers, seated among them on the journey. They say the ship’s crew were masked and spent most of their time in the cabin.
“The crew jumped in the water when the coastguard approached and some of these nine Egyptians tried to sail the boat,” one of them told us. “It seems to me they are not the ones involved in people smuggling,” he added.
Relatives of Egyptians who fear their loved ones were on board have told the BBC that they paid $4,500 (£3,500) each for the journey.
Yeah, I’m glad at least a few YouTubers are starting to mirror content on sites like Odysee though (Such as Louis Rossman). I think that, like Lemmy, it just needs to reach a critical mass of users before it’s viable
If you’re learning a language, netflix has good tie-ins with language reactor… but if the $9.99 option goes away, I’ll just switch to the beta video + subtitle file upload for that
I tend to agree. Something federated like PeerTube seems ideal for curating what kinds of content you want, but the data requirements for that are going to be much higher than mostly text and image-based things like lemmy or mastodon
I guess this is the kick in the pants to go over to odysee or somewhere else, huh
I’d say content is trivial, but having the sheer variety of content that youtube has is not. Odysee has some decent stuff on there- even some decent original stuff that isn’t just a mirror of someone’s youtube channel. But it’s not going to have the same niche, specific content I might look up on youtube.