Thank you, you lovely people. I appreciate all your hard work and wish you the best.

15 years

https://youtu.be/o3F_kC-yplA

If you paid someone to study a million books and write a novel in the style of some other author you have not violated any law. The same is true if you hire an artist to copy another artist's style. So why is it illegal if an AI does it? Why is it wrong?

I think this is intentionally missing the point.

LLMs don't actually think, or produce original ideas. If the human artist produces a work that too closely resembles a copyrighted work, then they will be subject to those laws. LLMs are not capable of producing new works, by definition they are 100% derivative. But their methods in doing so intentionally obfuscate attribution and allow anyone to flood a space with works that require actual humans to identify the copyright violations.

However, if I use a copier to copy a book then start selling or giving away those copies that's my problem: I would've violated copyright law. However, is it Xerox's problem? Did they do anything wrong by making a device that can copy books?

This is false equivalence

LLMs do not wholesale reproduce an original work in it's original form, they make it easy to mass produce a slightly altered form without any way to identify the original attribution.

Search engines work because they can download and store everyone's copyrighted works without permission. If you take away that ability, we'd all lose the ability to search the Internet.

No they don't. They index the content of the page and score its relevance and reliability, and still provide the end user with the actual original information

For 1 they actually addressed that: The system then translates the speech and maintains the expressive qualities and volume of each speaker’s voice while running on a device, such mobile devices with an Apple M2 chip like laptops and Apple Vision Pro. (The team avoided using cloud computing because of the privacy concerns with voice cloning.) Finally, when speakers move their heads, the system continues to track the direction and qualities of their voices as they change.

One thing that's always missing from these is people naming where they got their information from. Sure, she says that Trump said this or that, and all of us can easily say: well if course he didn't. We don't just have a problem with people not connecting the dots, we have major propaganda and misinformation issues. She probably read on Facebook or watched something on Tiktok that said this. Was it Russian operatives? Was it just Fox news? There are so many bad sources out there.

Done! Thank you for the link.

Interested in hearing about the right wing bent of Bttf and die hard