Sign the petition even if it’s surpassed 1mil signatures by the time you read this! The signatures will be verified after the petition is complete. This could lead to removal of any number of them. We don’t want to barely make it. Let’s go as high as possible!
Of course they’re not “three laws safe”. They’re black boxes that spit out text. We don’t have enough understanding and control over how they work to force them to comply with the three laws of robotics, and the LLMs themselves do not have the reasoning capability or the consistency to enforce them even if we prompt them to.
As far as I know, the apps are not intercepting the text messages for passcodes. The messages have a specific format and a hash to indicate which app they are targeting. It is up to the messages app to read the message and to forward the code. This design should not need to give the apps any access to your messages.
The 75% of your contacts you describe sound like they installed Signal only to talk to you or at most a handful of people, while most of their social circle is on WhatsApp. These people are trapped on WhatsApp exactly because there is no interoperability.
You mean, I’m making an argument. Because yes. I am. I don’t see why this negative framing is necessary nor why this is noteworthy enough to bring up, unless you really just want to make me look bad for no apparent reason.
I don’t understand how you expect me to not point out that you are using inequivalent concepts interchangeably and reaching conclusions different to what you initially stated.
No, seriously this the only part of the comment that is relevant:
They are what the AI is designed to extract, not Mario as a totality.
And it is stated as fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Here I’ll make it simple. Do you disagree on any of the below statements?
If any of the above seem false to you, explain why. Otherwise explain where this Mario-ness in the image came from. Explain how your answer relates to the initial statement that models detect empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.
That is the only thing that would be on topic. Everything else is just rambling. If you don’t argue in favor of your position I reacted to, or if you don’t understand the counter-point and respond clearly to it, then why are you replying to me at all?
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. Why you think people probably plagiarize is doubly irrelevant then.
Analysis is definitely relevant, since to create a work that does not infringe on copyright
Show me literally any example of the defendant’s use of “analysis” having any impact whatsoever in a copyright infringement case or a law that explicitly talks about it, or just stop repeating that it is in any way relevant to copyright.
But bring them all together in one place again without adding new patterns
Wrong. The “all together” and “without adding new patterns” are not legal requirements. You are constantly trying to push the definition of copyright infringement to be more extreme to make it easier for you to argue.
you generally can take ideas from a copyrighted work, but not the expression of those ideas
Unfortunately, an AI has no concept of ideas, and it simply encodes patterns, whatever they might happen to be. Again, you’re morphing the discussion to make an argument.
Mario’s likeness isn’t in the model, but it’s patterns are.
Mario’s likeness has to be encoded into the model in some way. Otherwise, this would not have been the image generated for “draw an italian plumber from a video game”. There is absolutely nothing in the prompt to push GPT-4 to combine those elements. There are also no “new” patterns, as you put it. That’s exactly the point of the article. As they put it:
Clearly, these models did not just learn abstract facts about plumbers—for example, that they wear overalls and carry wrenches. They learned facts about a specific fictional Italian plumber who wears white gloves, blue overalls with yellow buttons, and a red hat with an “M” on the front.
These are not facts about the world that lie beyond the reach of copyright. Rather, the creative choices that define Mario are likely covered by copyrights held by Nintendo.
This is contradictory to how you present it as “taking ideas”.
You have absolutely no legal basis to claim they are infringement
You’re mixing up different things. I’m saying that the image contains infringing material, which is hopefully not something you have to be convinced about. The production of an obviously infringing image, without the infringing elements having been provided in the prompt, is used to show how this information is encoded inside the model in some form. Whether this copyright-protected material exists in some form inside the model is not an equivalent question to whether this is copyright infringement. You are right that the courts have not decided on the latter, but we have been talking about the former. I repeat your position which I was directly responding to before:
What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.
No, not what I said at all. If you’re trying to say I’m making this argument I’d urge you (ironically) to actually analyze what I said rather than putting words in my mouth ;) (Or just, you know, ask me to clarify)
That was your implied argument regardless of intent.
Copyright infringement (or plagiarism) in it’s simplest form, as in just taking the material as is, is devoid of any analysis. The point is to avoid having to do that analysis and just get right to the end result that has value.
Completely wrong, which invalidates the point you want to make. “Analysis” and “as is” have no place in the definition of copyright infringement. A derivative work can be very different from the original material, and how you created the derivative work, including whether you performed whatever you think “analysis” means, is generally irrelevant.
What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.
No it detects patterns. You already said it correctly above. And the problem is that some patterns can be copyrighted. That’s exactly the problem highlighted here and here. For copyright law, it doesn’t matter if, for example, that particular image of Mario is copied verbatim from the training data. The character likeness, which is encoded in the model because it is in fact a discernible pattern, is an infringement.
Yes if you completely ignore how data is processed and how the product is derived from the data, then everything can be labeled “data analysis”. Great point. So copyright infringement can never exist because the original work can always be considered data that you analyze. Incredible.
the AI companies have a pretty good defense in the fact analyzing publicly viewable information is a pretty deep rooted freedom that provides a lot of positives to the world
They are not “analyzing” the data. They are feeding it into a regurgitating mechanism. There’s a big difference. Their defense is only “good” because AI is being misrepresented and misunderstood.
I agree that we shouldn’t strive for more strict copyright. We should fight for a much more liberal system. But as long as everyone else has to live by the current copyright laws, we should not let AI companies get away with what they’re doing.
For anyone stumbling onto this who actually wants to be educated, the science has practically unanimously agreed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity. No expert is unaware of the cycles that temporarily affect climate. They are well studied, modeled, and found to pale in comparison to human-made climate change. You can find comparisons between human and natural drivers, with sources from expert organizations and scientific studies, here and here. Funnily enough, the NOAA, which this commenter used as a source for El Niño and La Niña below, also hosts this article which literally starts by linking to a page that points out how climate change is mostly caused by humans.
Source? Why is it expensive?
No, there’s no way to automatically make something become law. A successful petition just forces the European Commission to discuss it and potentially propose legislation. Even though it’s not forcing anything to happen, there is an incentive for the commission to seriously consider it as there is probably a political cost to officially denying a motion that has proven that it concerns a large amount of people.