Drewelite

It's a standard that Microsoft maintains. Like, "This is what keyboards for our platform should look like." The only real place this gets enforced is laptops and maybe keyboards bundled with towers running Windows. It's part of the requirements to get the little Windows sticker on your product and allows you to market the hardware with the OS. Beyond that, other manufacturers will usually implement the standard just to be on the same page.

You don't, any more than you need the Windows key. MS just wants accessing AI on their platform to be quick and ubiquitous. This is their solution.

I believe it's to use generative A.I. on command

Try this

I agree AGIs aren't going to happen soon. But it sounds like we agree they WILL happen. LLMs do have one important thing in common with humans, their output is transformative based on what they learn.

I think what you take issue with is the scale. People wouldn't care if this was something that existed on one computer somewhere. Where someone could type, "Write me a spooky story about Top Ramen in the style of Stephen King". It's that anyone can get a story in Stephen Kings style when all OpenAI had to do is buy a couple digital copies of Cujo. However, no one is upset that James Cameron bought one ticket to Pocahontas and thought, "What if that were on another planet?". But 400 million people saw that movie.

People want to protect creatives buy casting a net over machines saying they can't use the works of artists, even when transforming them, without payment to the original creator. While that sounds like it makes sense now, what happens when the distinction between human and machine disappears? That net will be around us too. Corporations will just use this to empower their copyright rule even further.

Stephen King was largely inspired by Ray Bradbury and H.P. Lovecraft. I doubt he paid them beyond the original price of a couple books.

BTW thanks for the thought provoking conversation. None of my friends care about this stuff 😅

Every learning material a company or university has ever used has been used to train an LLM. Us.

Okay I'm being a bit facetious here. I know people and chat GPT aren't equivalent. But the gap is closing. Maybe LLMs will never bridge the gap, but something will. I hesitate to write into law now that any work can never be ingested or emulated by another intelligent entity. While the difference between a machine and a human are clear to you now, one day they won't be.

The longer we hold onto the idea that our brains are somehow magically different from the way computers (are) will learn to think, the harder we'll get blindsided by reality when they're indistinguishable from us.

But that is what's happening in the minds of creatives. Reading a book and taking inspiration is functionally the same mechanism that an LLM uses to learn. They read Stephen King, they copy some part of the style. Potentially very closely and for a corporation's gain if that's what's asked of them.

I would argue we do have a legal precedent for this sort of thing. Companies hire creatives all the time and ask them to do things in the style of other creatives. You can't copyright a style. You don't own what you inspire.

This is sick. An android TV app, while I'm sure a low priority, would make this a home run for me. Great work.