archontes

Maybe so. Maybe a disruptive technology now exists that renders the modus operandi of many industries moot. It's called disruptive for a reason.

I am also of the opinion that AI weights aren't copyrightable, as they're the result of an automatic process. "Open source" weights are a laughable non-sequitur.

I am not generally of the opinion that we need to expand copyright in order to protect a status quo.

How does that follow from the definition of copyright or the protections it offers? This is law we're talking about. Cite the black and white.

From copyright.gov "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed"

What rights does copyright provide?

Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords.

Prepare derivative works based upon the work.

Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending.

Perform the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a motion picture or other audiovisual work.

Display the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. This right also applies to the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.

Perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission if the work is a sound recording.

Training an AI isn't on this list. An AI may produce infringing outputs, but training an AI isn't a violation of copyright.

"Copyright laundering" is a nonsense idea. Copyright is not designed to prevent people or machines from producing things in a style or similar things. It protects against exact reproduction or reuse, and that only to the extent that the form is separable from function. If the form is inseparable from function, the expression cannot be copyrighted at all.

Let's assume "shuffling stuff" as you describe it would solidly place a work into the "derivative works" category.

Fine, the AI has produced a derivative work. The original copyright holder has a claim on that work if it were to be distributed, sold, displayed, or performed.

Does the AI hold a copyright? No. Only humans can hold copyrights. Does the prompter hold a copyright? No. A human has to perform the transformative work, not merely arrange for a machine to do it. AI outputs are not copyrightable.

But how you "feel" about it isn't a useful measure. It being like "cheating off someone's homework" isn't useful, either. Hell. Copyright is carefully crafted to allow "cheating off someone's homework" provided that the result doesn't reproduce elements of the original exactly.

How, to you, does training an AI violate copyright?

What a crazy coincidence.

And, critically, not blocked by bluecoat, whereas Dropbox is.

I disagree. I haven't finished the article yet, but it smacks of arguing for mechanism over result.

If by some mechanism other than what a gatekeeper would call 'reasoning', a machine produces outputs that approach indistinguishable from 'well reasoned', the argument that it didn't get there by reasoning is, well, not useful at the very least.

By all means, let's let him.

In the end, this might even be a useful element for defining 'life'.

My response is typically, "I have literally everything to hide. I don't want you to know my middle name. I don't want you to know what I had for breakfast. It's none of anyone's business."

And weirdly, the response I get is, "Oh yeah, fair."

Wild that they increased the ipad prices as well; the entire point of the ipad is that it's a handicapped tool to avoid cutting into macbook marketshare.

Too many cameras and not enough food.

Now compensate for the oblateness of the Earth.