This the the problem for the LLM, it can be used for many things, and if it has no filter or limit

I agree with pretty much everything before this but that particular comment was just talking about summaries, which imo is a lot more cut and dry. (SparkNotes, for example)

An LLM by itself is unlimited and unfiltered, but it’s not impossible to limit one and sell it. For all the shit OpenAI deserves to get, I have to give them one thing, their copyright restriction system seems to be on par with YouTube. I paid for a month of it when GPT4 came out and tried my hardest to bypass it, but it won’t even give me copyrighted texts when the words are all replaced with synonyms or jumbled around.

I think if someone’s offering their LLM as a service and has a system like that in place, they aren’t stealing any more than YouTube is stealing. Otherwise I agree that there’s a strong argument for copyright infringement.

Look, guys! The TLDR bot is stealing!

!Arthur Dent has his home demolished while humans simultaneously have Earth demolished by an alien race called Vogons, but him and Ford Prefect escape by hitchhiking onto the Vogon ship. They’re discovered and thrown into space, but miraculously saved by Ford’s relative (can’t remember how they’re related) and his ship The Heart of Gold, which is powerful but unpredictable. They wind up on a mythical planet due to that unpredictability, and learn that Earth was a designer planet created to calculate the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. (The famous “42” thing). The whole crew escapes the planet and decides to go to The Restaurant at the End of The Universe to eat and watch the universe end.!<

Have I just stolen The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and given it to you?

Or just increase the size of the pen tool…

Same. Guess I won’t bother looking into it if it’s impossible 🤷‍♀️

They going to ban pork products and all shellfish too? Or are we cherry picking here…

“bUt ThaT’s tHE oLD tEsTAmEnT!! 🤓☝️”

Sort of, but no. They’re transparent because of the frame blending. Since moving objects/characters occupy different parts of the foreground across multiple frames, the background ends up getting blended into them. They call that “ghosting” because it effectively makes them transparent.

So they do lose opacity, but it’s not like they’re lowering an opacity value or anything.

It’s an anti-seizure measure. Which makes sense for TV where kids might come across it by accident, but it doesn’t make sense for streaming services where we could easily opt in/out of those versions.

Edit: This is what it looks like, compared to Blu-ray. They dim the whole screen and blend multiple frames together, which makes it hard to decipher what’s going on and mutes the colors. (Another):

Expecting your stuff to remain private online is like leaving your belongings on the sidewalk and expecting nobody to touch them.

My story but with anime. Japan has some really annoying laws requiring their shows to be blurred and dimmed during fast-paced scenes and it absolutely butchers the height of good animations.

The Blu-ray releases don’t have this issue, but guess what releases aren’t available for purchase/streaming for English audiences. 🫠 I want to give them money so bad, but 🤷‍♀️

I use premium and even I cringed at this. The first two thirds of this are written like an AI generated ad.

I get the sentiment but I don’t think anything here addresses anything I haven’t already mentioned. The labor is certainly being used and it’s certainly for profit, but not in any way that humans don’t already do.

I really am sympathetic towards artists, though. Like I get that a lot of demand for their work could one day be taken by what generative AI is working towards. I just don’t understand how we can reasonably call it theft/crime when a computer figures out how to make an image by looking at other images but not when humans do it. The whole thing seems like an appeal to emotion.

Honestly I still don’t understand the “stealing” argument. Does the stealing occur during training? From everything I’ve learned about the technology, the training, in terms of the data given and the end result, isn’t any different than me scrolling through Google images to get a concept of how to draw something. It’s not like they have a copy of the whole Internet on their servers to make it work.

Does it occur during the image generation? Because try as I might, I’ve never been able to get it to output copyrighted material. I know over fitting used to be an issue, but we figured out how to solve that issue a long time ago. “But the signatures!!” yeah, it’s never outputted a recognizable/legible signature, it just associates signatures with art.

Shouldn’t art theft be judged like any other copyright matter? It doesn’t matter how it was created, it matters if it violates fair use. I really don’t think training crosses that line, and I’ve yet to see these models output a copy of another image outside of image-to-image models.

You when billion dollar companies want to literally shove more ads in your face:

It’s when you suck oligarch cock

🥾👅

Why the hell wasn’t it opt-in from the beginning?

IANAL

🤤

It’s not illegal to modify software that you own, regardless of what Adobe wants. That, for the second time, is the precedent we’re challenging you to find.

The crux of your issue seems to be that you’re deliberately ignoring that the first guy owns his software.