lol3droflxp

Because nobody wants to sell this?

Maybe he will switch even quicker if you punch him or pull his teeth out.

I get that this is expensive. However, it should also work with RAM if you accept slower speeds I guess. The question is of course if it’s still usable then.

Doesn’t that mean RAM?

Well, there have been several music lawsuits about certain songs and their amount of identity to others. If you were to write something as closely to another author that you are imitating something like trademark mannerisms there may be a case for that.

I think that writing in someone else’s style to an extent that it becomes very obvious is indeed something that raises copyright concerns.

deleted by creator

What an incredibly annoying piece of software. I avoid it wherever I can but it’s unfortunately standard where I work.

Something for sure

True but it might be one of the few reasons websites are even optimised for something else than chrome these days.

Kind of a big jump

The LLM is a tool. It’s like granting copyright to a paintbrush.

That’s not what I meant by that. People should have the rights to the products they produce using the tools at their disposal.

I see a lot of Dunning Kruger here as well. The fact is that you can generate novel images/texts/whatever with these tools. They may mostly suck but they’re still novel so they can be copyrighted by whoever used these tools to create them.

Where did I ever say that a stupid AI should get any rights to its own product?

If it was a compression algorithm then it would be insanely efficient and that’d be the big thing about it. The simple fact is that they aren’t able to reproduce their exact training data so no, they aren’t storing it in a highly compressed form.

They are physically unable to just copy paste stuff. The models are tiny compared to the training data, they don’t store it.

Finally someone who gets it

The LLMs don’t deserve or have any rights. They’re a tool that people can use. Just like reference material, spellcheckers, asset libraries or whatever else creatives use. As long as they don’t actually violate copyright in the classical sense of just copy pasting stuff the product people generate using them is probably as (un)original as a lot of art out there. And collages can be transformative enough to qualify for copyright.

In reality people learn how to write lyrics because they listen to songs. Nobody writes a song without listening to thousands of them and many human written songs are really similar to each other. Otherwise the music industry wouldn’t be littered with lawsuits. I don’t really see the difference.