FaceDeer

The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It’s by no means a universally accepted thing.

It’s funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they’ve become convinced that AI is Satan.

If it’s paywalled how did they access it?

The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn’t need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don’t automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they’re contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.

An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn’t include any identifiable pieces of the training data.

So charge them an appropriate price for the scarce resource they’re using.

A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that’s been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they “own” and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It’s just not so.

I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.

Streaming involves distributing copies so I don’t see why it would be. The law has been well tested in this area.

“Exploiting copyrighted content” is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.

If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can’t do is distribute copies of it.

The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it’s something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.

A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn’t a generalized “you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of” law. It’s all about making and distributing copies of the data.

No, because training an AI is not “pirating.”

Breaking: Two people whose fortunes depend on the existing world order urge lawmakers to ban something new that could disrupt that order.

Some years back I was in a D&D campaign where doppelgangers became a major ongoing concern. It turned out that in that case doppelgangers built up their image of the person they wanted to mimic through careful observation, but thanks to the general prudishness of society doppelgangers rarely ever caught glimpses of peoples’ genitals. So we ultimately came up with the “crotch check” system. Doppelgangers usually couldn’t form plausible genitalia.

It’s bottoms all the way down.

Oh, they say that? Weird, I distinctly recall the box saying “reusable” when I bought them years ago. I guess it’s like the thing where Q-tips are labelled as “not to be crammed into your ear-holes”, to bring it full circle.

I clean them using a hand bidet, the high-pressure stream of water from it blasts all the wax out from between the vanes. Soaking them in some kind of soapy water or solvent sounds like it’d work well too, if you don’t have a high pressure water stream readily available.

These are reusable. Those ones I bought a few years back are still in use.

I saw a box of these on Amazon for $6. You’re really going to quibble over a few bucks?

Besides, these do a better job than wads of cotton on sticks. So it’s worth a few bucks.

But if you did randomly choose the 0% option, you’d be correct. So if one of the possible answers was 0% the correct answer would be 25%.

A few years back I bought one of these on a whim and I’ve found it to be an excellent ear wax removal tool. Just take care when inserting - that’s the motion that can shove wax deeper or impact your ear drum.

A quick Googling shows that there are a ton of other tools with a wide variety of shapes and materials, but this is the one that I can personally vouch for. Cleaning the wax off of the finned end after use requires a strong jet of water, that’s the only downside I can think of.

But you’re claiming that this knowledge cannot possibly be used to make a work that infringes on the original.

I am not. The only thing I’ve been claiming is that AI training is not copyright violation, and the AI model itself is not copyright violation.

As an analogy, you can use Photoshop to draw a picture of Mario. That does not mean that Photoshop is violating copyright by existing, and Adobe is not violating copyright by having created Photoshop.

You claimed that AI training is not even in the domain of copyright, which is different from something that is possibly in that domain, but is ruled to not be infringing.

I have no idea what this means.

I’m saying that the act of training an AI does not perform any actions that are within the realm of the actions that copyright could actually say anything about. It’s like if there’s a law against walking your dog without a leash, and someone asks “but does it cover aircraft pilots’ licenses?” No, it doesn’t, because there’s absolutely no commonality between the two subjects. It’s nonsensical.

Honestly, none of your responses have actually supported your initial position.

I’m pretty sure you’re misinterpreting my position.

The “copyright situation” regarding an actual literal picture of Mario doesn’t need to be fixed because it’s already quite clear. There’s nothing that needs to change to make an AI-generated image of Mario count as a copyright violation, that’s what the law already says and AI’s involvement is irrelevant.

When people talk about needing to “change copyright” they’re talking about making something that wasn’t illegal previously into something that is illegal after the change. That’s presumably the act of training or running an AI model. What else could they be talking about?

The parents weren’t paying attention to their obviously disturbed kid and they left a gun lying around for him to find. But sure, it was the chatbot that was the problem. Everything would have been perfectly fine forever without it.

Yes, that’s what I said. There are no “additional restrictions” from having a GPL license on something. The GPL license works by giving rights that weren’t already present under the default copyright. You can reject the GPL on an open sourced piece of software if you want to, but then you lose the additional rights that the GPL gives you.