It will be difficult because the AI only returns short results (relatively speaking). A sentence or two does not make for copyright infringement.
riskable
joined 1 year ago
Except there's nothing illegal about scraping all the content from websites (including news sites) and putting it into your own personal database. That is--after all--how search engines work.
It's only illegal if you then distribute said copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission. Because that's what copyright is all about: Distribution.
The news sites distributing the content in this case freely gave it to OpenAI's crawlers. It's not like they broke into these organizations in order to copy their databases of news articles.
For the news sites to have a case they need to demonstrate that OpenAI is creating a "derivative work" using their copyrighted material. However, that's going to be a tough sell to judges and/or juries since the way LLMs work is not so different from how humans do: They take in information and then produce similar information (by predicting the next word/symbol, given a series of tokens/a prompt).
If you read all of Stephen King's books, for example, you might be better at writing horror stories. You may even start writing in a similar style! That doesn't mean you're violating his copyright by producing similar stories.
Ahaha! Microsoft employees are using AI to ~~write~~ hallucinate their own performance reviews and managers are using that very same AI to "review" said performance reviews. Which is exactly the dystopian vision of the future that OpenAI sells!
What's funny is that the "cult of Microsoft" is 100% bullshit so the AI is being trained in bullshit and as time goes on its being reinforced with it's own hallucinated bullshit because everyone is using it to bullshit the bullshitters in management who are demanding this bullshit!
Gelsinger said the market will have less demand for dedicated graphics cards in the future.
No wonder Intel is in such rough shape! Gelsinger is an idiot.
Does he think that the demand for AI-accelerating hardware is just going to go away? That the requirement of fast, dedicated memory attached to a parallel processing/matrix multiplying unit (aka a discreet GPU) is just going to disappear in the next five years‽
The board needs to fire his ass ASAP and replace him with someone who has a grip on reality. Or at least someone who has a some imagination of how the future could be.
It takes effort but you have to milk it for all its worth!
Not true! The female nipple is actually useful.
Meh. This is but a fraction of what the big media companies think the world owes them for piracy.
There's no easier lie for a politician than piety.
As another (local) AI enthusiast I think the point where AI goes from "great" to "just hype" is when it's expected to generate the correct response, image, etc on the first try.
For example, telling an AI to generate a dozen images from a prompt then picking a good one or re-working the prompt a few times to get what you want. That works fantastically well 90% of the time (assuming you're generating something it has been trained on).
Expecting AI to respond with the correct answer when given a query > 50% of the time or expecting it not to get it dangerously wrong? Hype. 100% hype.
It'll be a number of years before AI is trustworthy enough not to hallucinate bullshit or generate the exact image you want on the first try.
Just a point of clarification: Copyright is about the right of distribution. So yes, a company can just "download the Internet", store it, and do whatever TF they want with it as long as they don't distribute it.
That the key: Distribution. That's why no one gets sued for downloading. They only ever get sued for uploading. Furthermore, the damages (if found guilty) are based on the number of copies that get distributed. It's because copyright law hasn't been updated in decades and 99% of it predates computers (especially all the important case law).
What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works. Which is kinda what's going on but also not really. Let's say that someone asks ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs of something in the style of Stephen King... His "style" isn't even cooyrightable so as long as it didn't copy his works word-for-word is it even a derivative? No one knows. It's never been litigated before.
My guess: No. It's not going to count as a derivative work. Because it's no different than a human reading all his books and performing the same, perfectly legal function.
They officially don't care about running .NET applications on Linux anymore. They never really did before but so few people fell for that trap Microsoft is finally ready to turn in the towel
I think this one can be attributed to, "mere poor taste" and a lack of imagination.
If I were in charge of the leading image in the article I'd replace "cloud" with "shitstorm emoji" in the prompt. Then it would make more sense and be more applicable to VMWare.